In today’s ever-increasing mobile society, divorced or separate families find themselves relocating for a variety of reasons, including employment opportunities, new relationships, financial incentives and to be closer to family.
But what happens after families relocate out-of-state and child custody issues arise? Which state has jurisdiction to hear the matter?
In 1968, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was promulgated in order to prevent parental interstate kidnapping and forum shopping by the non-custodial parent (i.e. attempting to secure a more favorable forum to litigate child custody and parenting time issues in order to obtain a better result) by creating a uniform system for states to determining interstate custody and parenting time jurisdictional issues. By 1981, all 50 states had adopted their version of the UCCJA.
However, in December 1980, prior to all 50 states adopting the UCCJA, Congress enacted the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). The PKPA was enacted to address interstate custody jurisdictional problems that continued after the enactment of the UCCJA, but ended up being largely inconsistent with the UCCJA and created almost 30 years of conflicting case law.
To address both the problems stemming from the UCCJA and the PKPA, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) was created in 1997. To date, the UCCJEA has been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia (except for Massachusetts) and various U.S. territories.
Two of the major revisions made to the UCCJEA were the prioritization of home state jurisdiction and the vesting of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction in the State that entered an original/initial child custody order.
Home State Jurisdiction
The first major revision to the UCCJEA was the establishment of Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction or “home state” jurisdiction. “Home state” is defined as, “the State in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than six months of age, the term means the State in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.” See Section 101 (7) of the UCCJEA.
Pursuant to Section 201 of the UCCJEA, in interstate child custody matters, a state is granted jurisdiction to make a child custody determination only if:
(1) The state was the “home state” of the child on the date of the commencement of the judicial proceedings, or was the home state of the child within the six (6) month period before the commencement of the judicial proceeding, and the although the child is not residing in the state, a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;
(2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction, or the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that this state is a more appropriate forum, and:
(a) The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent (or person acting as a parent) have a significant connection with the state, other than physical presence.
(b) Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships.
(3) All courts having jurisdiction have declined to exercise same on the basis that this state is the more appropriate forum.
(4) No Court of any other State would have jurisdiction under the criteria set forth in (1), (2), or (3).
Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction
The other major revision to the UCCJEA was the addition of “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction”. Pursuant to section 202, the continuing jurisdiction of the original decree state (i.e. the state that made an initial custody determination) is exclusive, and will continue until one of two events occur:
(1) If a parent or person acting as the child’s parent remains in the original decree state, continuing jurisdiction is lost when neither the child, the child and a parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent continue to have a significant connection with the original decree state and there is no longer substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships in that State.
(2) When the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the original decree state.
This means that, even if the child has acquired a new “home state”, the original decree state retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, so long as the “significant connection” requirement of Section 201 (See 201(2)((a) and (b)) is met. However, if the original decree state determines that the relationship between the child and the person remaining in the original decree state has diminished, thus precluding a finding of significant connections and substantial evidence, jurisdiction in the original decree state would no longer exist.
Additionally, when the child, the parents, and all persons acting as parents physically leave the original decree state and live elsewhere, exclusive continuing jurisdiction ceases. In this event, either the original decree state or the new state may decide whether the original decree state has lost jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction to Modify Initial Determination
But what happens where an original decree state finds that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over a matter? How does it relinquish jurisdiction to a new “home state”?
Pursuant to Section 203, a new state may not modify a child custody determination made by the court of another state unless the new state has “home state jurisdiction” under Section 201 and
(1) the original decree state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, or the original decree state determines that the new state would be a more convenient forum (See Section 207); or
(2) a court of the original decree state or a court of the new state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the original decree state.
Thus, a new state is prohibited from modifying a custody determination made by an original decree state unless the original decree state has determined that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or the new state has decided is it a more convenient. The new state is not authorized to determine whether the original decree state has lost its jurisdiction; only the original decree state can make that determination. The only exception to this is when the new state finds that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the original decree state.
It is clear from section 203 that when an interstate child custody issues arises, the original decree state and the new state must communicate and cooperate to determine the proper jurisdiction of a matter; but how often does this occur?
Application of the UCCJEA in New Jersey
While the new revisions and clarifications made to the UCCJEA were supposed to make it easier for courts to determine who could hear interstate child custody matters, as discussed in the recent unpublished (not precedential) decision of C.G. v. A.D. it is clear that the courts are still struggling over jurisdictional issues.
In the aforementioned case, the mother A.D., lived with the parties’ daughter in Delaware for 5 years, until the child temporarily moved to New Jersey to live with her father, C.G., due to A.G.’s medical condition.
Shortly thereafter the mother filed a petition in Delaware for custody of the parties’ daughter. In September 2012, the Delaware judge entered an order awarding the mother sole custody after determining that Delaware was the child’s “home state” pursuant to the UCCJEA, finding that since the mother filed the petition less than six months after the child left Delaware and went to New Jersey, Delaware retained jurisdiction.
The mother then filed a motion in New Jersey, requesting that the court to enforce the custody order entered by the Delaware court.
In June 2014, a New Jersey judge, after conducting oral argument, denied the mother’s application without making any findings of fact as to the child’s residency leading up to the mother’s petition for custody in Delaware and without communicating with the Delaware court regarding the original order. Additionally, despite failing to follow the procedural requisites of the UCCJEA, the New Jersey Judge entered an order requiring the mother to attend therapeutic intervention to aid her parenting time with her daughter.
Thereafter, the mother then returned to the Delaware court seeking again, an order of custody of the parties’ daughter. The Delaware court affirmed its original September 2012 custody order asserting, among other things, that Delaware had jurisdiction to enter the initial order due to the fact that Delaware was the “home state” of the child at the time the mother filed the application.
The mother then appealed the June 2014 New Jersey order, challenging the intervention of the New Jersey court in light of the original Delaware custody order entered in September 2012.
The Appellate Division made it clear that the dispute at bar was subject to UCCJEA and that an initial custody order was properly issued in Delaware. Thus, the subsequent order entered in New Jersey was a “modification proceeding” and in order to modify the initial order, New Jersey was required to make a two-tiered finding as to whether (1) New Jersey was the child’s “home state” and (2) if it was not, whether Delaware was.
If the New Jersey court concluded that New Jersey had “home state” jurisdiction, the next step would be to determine whether custody proceedings had been commenced in another state. If so, New Jersey must stay its proceedings and communicate with the other court to seek an agreement as to whether New Jersey is a more convenient forum or Delaware retained jurisdiction.
If New Jersey concluded that Delaware remained as the child’s “home state”, then all proceedings should have been deferred to Delaware.
Unfortunately, in this matter, the New Jersey court did not follow the proper procedure under the UCCJEA, despite being presented with an existing custody order from Delaware, and the subsequently entered June 2014 order requiring the mother to attend therapeutic intervention to aid her parenting time with her daughter was reversed and remanded.
When it comes to the interstate child, the first order of business before filing a custody or parenting time application, it to determine the proper jurisdiction for doing so. In a matter where two (or sometimes more) courts must communicate, it may be prudent to file an application in all possible jurisdictions, requesting that the possible courts communicate with one another to determine the appropriate forum. This step will (presumably) avoid the inconsistencies that arise when multiple orders are rendered by multiple jurisdictions. Taking this simple step before filing an application may also avoid extensive litigation to correct jurisdictional errors, which could elongate matters and drive up fees unnecessarily.