Court Opinion

ID: 9687478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:30:04.281147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:27.790375
License: Public Domain

CANE, C.J.
¶ 24. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Even assuming Wisconsin is the home state as the majority concludes and as the circuit court ultimately agreed, I conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion to decline jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. § 822.27 which states in relevant part:
(1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a party, the court's own motion, or the request of another court.
(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.
¶ 25. Here, the circuit court reasonably exercised its discretion to decline jurisdiction when it concluded the Idaho court was the more appropriate forum and the Wisconsin court the inconvenient forum by reasoning that:
*227(a) the divorce proceedings had already been properly commenced in Idaho while the wife was still pregnant;
(b) the Idaho court has jurisdiction not only over the marriage, but also over any children born during that marriage and the child was born during the marriage;
(c) the wife had appeared in the Idaho divorce proceeding;
(d) the Idaho court asserted its jurisdiction over the marriage and the issue of custody and support of the marital child;
(e) it would be inappropriate for two courts of different states to assume jurisdiction of the same child custody issue; and
(f) finally, custody of the marital child should be decided in one court and that court should be where the divorce proceeding had already been properly commenced, namely, the Idaho court.
¶ 26. This was a reasonable exercise of discretion and I would therefore affirm the circuit court's discretionary decision to decline jurisdiction.