Court Opinion

ID: 9528651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:42:47.325876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:10.724293
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
I would affirm. I would find the trial court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction and its decision was correct.
Prior to trial on September 9, 1989, Judge William Jay entered an order that provided in part:
The parties further stipulated and agreed to the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the petition for modification filed August 18, 1989 by the respondent in this court. That consent to jurisdiction is to both personal jurisdiction of the court and consent to the jurisdiction of the subject matter to be determined by this court.
The trial court then ordered:
That this Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition for modification filed August 18, 1989, and this jurisdiction is to both personal jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the subject matter.
The question of jurisdiction raised its head only after Paul was unsuccessful in the modification. I would find the August 18, stipulation and order resolved any issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Even if it did not, I would find Iowa has subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code section 598A.3 which provides in relevant part:
It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
The parents have agreed to Iowa as a forum to hear the modification matter. Trial has been held with both parents present and represented. I see no valid reason why we should decline jurisdiction for possible relitigation in another forum.