Divorce Law Journal

UCCJEA: What to do when original state erroneously retains continuing jurisdicition? Ky Court of Appeals Published Opinion

BALL V. MCGOWAN

A Nevada court entered a custody order, after which child and Father moved to Kentucky. Child did not return to Nevada after moving to Kentucky. Several years later, Mother filed an action for custody in Nevada, while Father filed an action for custody in Kentucky. Pursuant to the UCCJEA, the Kentucky trial court contacted the Nevada trial court to determine whether or not Nevada retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custodial matter. Nevada, as the state that made the initial custody determination, claimed exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the matter. Thus, the Kentucky trial court dismissed the Kentucky case. Father appealed arguing the Kentucky trial court erred.

The Court of Appeals conducts a detailed UCCJEA analysis utilizing KRS 403.822 and the corresponding Nevada statute. The court concludes Nevada erred in claims exclusive, continuing jurisdiction as only one parent, and not the child, remained significantly connected to Nevada. However, as the UCCJEA makes the original state “the sole determinant of whether jurisdiction continues”, the Court of Appeals holds it is without the authority to disturb the Nevada court’s decision that it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. 

The Court of Appeals continues its analysis, finding that under the UCCJEA, as set forth in KRS 403.834(1), the Kentucky court can request the Nevada court decline jurisdiction because it is an “inconvenient forum.” As the Kentucky trial court failed to request the Nevada court decline jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s ruling that Nevada has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, but reverses the dismissal of the petition to allow the trial court to contact the Nevada court and request it decline jurisdiction.

Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell.

 

Published Family Law Opinion from Ky Supreme Court - Whether a child testifies is in the discretion of the trial court and six hour time limit on trial was reasonable

ADDISON V. ADDISON

After significant ongoing litigation over custody, the Trial Court ordered that custody be transferred to Father and that Mother have supervised visitation. The Court of Appeals reversed because of the arbitrary time limitation at trial. Upon discretionary review the Ky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.

Time Limitations

As the Trial Court judge was familiar with the case, set the time limit sufficiently in advance of trial, and had significant experience with modification hearings, six hours was a reasonable time limitation within the discretion of the Judge.

Children’s Testimony

Mother requested the minor children testify as part of the modification hearing. The Trial Court declined to interview the children in chambers or allow them to testify. Mother argued on appeal the Trial Court did not have the authority to exclude the children’s testimony, when the children were called by a party to be a witness in a custody proceeding. The Court of Appeals, citing Coleman agreed. Coleman v. Coleman, 323 S.W.3d 770 (Ky. App. 2010). The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and Coleman holding that the decision to interview a child or permit a child to testify in custody proceedings is within the discretion of the trial court. KRS 403.290(1) which grants a judge discretion in interviewing a child would be defeated if a party could obligate a child to testify. Additionally, the Trial court had the benefit of a GAL, two psychologists, and there is strong policy against placing a child between parents. The Trial Court’s decision was within its discretion.    

Jurisdiction

Although the Mother and children resided in Indiana, Kentucky was the undisputed home state when custody was initially determined. Father remained in Kentucky and exercised visitation in Kentucky. The Trial Court properly considered KRS 403.834 in determining Kentucky retained jurisdiction. Furthermore, Mother’s timing in requesting a change in jurisdiction was suspect.

Best Interest Standard, Attorney Fees, and Psychological Evaluation

The Supreme Court affirmed the Trial Court on all remaining issues finding no errors. The Trial Court properly applied the best interest standard by considering the KRS 402.340 and 403.270 factors, as well as an expert’s recommendation. The Trial Court declined to award mother attorney fees, as Mother’s actions necessitated the proceedings and there is nothing mandatory in an award of fees under KRS 403.220. Finally, the Trial Court properly denied Mother’s motion for Father to undergo a psychological evaluation as Father’s mental health was never in controversy.

Digested by Elizabeth M. Howell

 

Published UCCJEA Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today

Danaher v. Hopkins

Trial court's denial of petition to register a foreign custody judgment was affirmed. A court must enforce a foreign judgment only when the issuing state had jurisdiciton under the UCCJEA. Because North Carolina did not have initial jurisdiciton it does not have exclusive continuing jurisdiction. 

Trial court's finding that Kentucky is the home state of the child was affirmed. Reversal of a factual finding requires it to be clearly erroneous and not supported by substanial evidence which is not the case in this matter.

Father also appealed from a second order requiring a custody action to proceed before Warren Circuit Court. This was not a final  and appealable order as it did not adjudicate the rights of either party. Therefore the appeal of this order was dismissed.

 

 

Third Family Law Published Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today

Luu v. Murphy, et al

Child custody award to de facto custodians reversed. Substantial evidence of record does not support the conclusion that appellees were child's primary caregivers and primary financial supporters. Trial court appears to have based its ruling on testimony of the appellees that they "believed" they were no longer just babysitting the child but that they were keeping her on a permanent basis. During three of the months appellees had the child it was clear that this was meant to be a temporary babysitting arrangement. Mother's temporary absences from West Virginia did not cout against the six-month period required to establish the home state of the child. Even if Kentucky had jurisdiction, under facts of this case appellees could not be declared de facto custodians because they had not been child's primary caregiver and financial supporters for six month before mother sought to regain custody.

The West Virginia family court has jurisdiciton.

New UCCJEA Published Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals April 25, 2014

Curry v. Curry

Residency in KY is not a requirement for continuing jurisdiction. The central inquiry is whether child maintained a substantial connection with KY. UCCJEA is concerned with child's connection to the state, not a particular county.

Three Published Family Law Opinions from Ky Supreme Court Yesterday

Bell v. Bell  Unreimbursed business expenses may not be deducted from the gross income of an employed parent in calculating child support. However if trial court finds the amount of unreimbursed expenses an extraordinary factor, it may deviate from the guideline award to reach an equitable result.

 

Cabinet for Health and Family Services v. K.H., Sr.   Family court made particularized finding of abuse by each parent which was supported by substantial evidence and properly considered each of the six statutory factors in determining that termination of parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Court of Appeals opinion was therefore reversed and the family court’s order terminating parental rights was affirmed.

 

Coffey, et al v. Wethington  A person acting as a parent has standing to bring a custody action. If the person acting as a parent has physical custody of the child at the time the action is commenced, standing exists and it need not have been for six consecutive months. The six month requirement applies only to persons who had physical custody in the past but who do not have physical custody at the commencement of the action.

Published Family Law Opinion from Ky Court of Appeals Today: Split custody modification jurisdiction under UCCJEA

Ellis v. Ellis

 Where Ky did not issue original custody decree, neither child currently resides in issuing state and that state declines to exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction, and one child lives with father in Ky and other child resides with mother in AZ, Ky is clearly the home state of one child and AZ is clearly the home state of the other child. The only issue is whether Ky should decline to exercise jurisdiction to modify because AZ is a more appropriate forum. While splitting jurisdictions should generally be avoided, in this case trial court was reversed because AZ has no connection to the son, no relevant information about the child is located in Az, and none of the factors of KRS 403.834(2) would favor AZ’s exercise of jurisdiciton over KY.