At least a few times each month I receive a phone call or email from someone involved in a multi-state child custody case. Since I deliberately restrict my practice to South Carolina, generally these folks get referred elsewhere. However in communicating with these multi-state custody litigants, I perceive that they are frequently receiving inaccurate information, often the same inaccurate information, regarding jurisdiction–the power of a court in a particular state to decide custody.
Misconception one: “home state” determines custody
The most common misconception is that “home state” determines jurisdiction. The UCCJEA [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act] defines “home state” 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.
S.C. Code § 63-15-302(7) [all references to the UCCJEA in this blog will be to the South Carolina version].
“Home state,” basically the last place the child lived for a consecutive six-month period, is vital to deciding jurisdiction in an initial case. However, the “home state” only decides jurisdiction in an initial custody determination and only if the child, a parent, or a person acting as a parent continues to live in the home state.
The UCCJEA sets four grounds for authorizing jurisdiction with each of the succeeding grounds having lower priority (that is, one only goes to the next ground if no state has jurisdiction under the previous ground). Those grounds are:
(1) this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State;
(2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under item (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under Section 63-15-342 or 63-15-344, and:
(a) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and
(b) substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(3) all courts, having jurisdiction under item (1) or (2), have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 63-15-342 or 63-15-344; or
(4) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in item (1), (2), or (3).
Note that “home state” is only a basis for jurisdiction if the child, a parent, or a person acting as a parent continues to live in the home state. If none of these folks continue to live in the home state, there is no home state jurisdiction. For example, if California is a child’s “home state” but mother and child move to Tennessee and father moves to Oregon, California would not have jurisdiction to decide custody.
Misconception two: “home state” always has priority in jurisdiction
While home state jurisdiction, if it exists, has priority in initial custody determinations, it is of greatly diminished importance in modification actions. A state retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify its own custody order so long as it has jurisdiction under any of the tests for an initial custody case and so long as the child, a parent, or a person acting as a parent remains in the issuing state. S.C. Code § 63-15-332. Thus, a child could have left the issuing state years ago but so long as the other parent remains in the issuing state and so long as there is substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships in the issuing state, that state will retain continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify child custody, even if it stopped being the home state years ago.
Misconception three: the child’s “home state” never needs the issuing state’s permission to modify custody
Assuming that the child, a parent, or a person acting as a parent remains in the issuing state, another state can only modify custody if the issuing state’s court “determines that neither the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this State and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this State concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.” S.C. Code § 63-15-332(A)(1).
Misconception four: one always needs the issuing state’s permission to modify custody
If the child, the child’s parents, or any person acting as a parent does not presently reside in the issuing state, another state does not need the issuing state’s permission to modify its custody order. S.C. Code § 63-15-332(A)(2).
Misconception five: a state needs to be the “home state” to modify another state’s custody order
If the child’s home state no longer has the ability to modify custody–because neither the child, a parent, or a person acting as a parent remains in the home state–any state that meets the initial jurisdictional requirements can modify custody. Often such jurisdiction may exist simply because the child and custodial parent are physically present in a new state and the other parent lives in a state in which there is not substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. For example, if there is a custody order in California and mother and child move to Tennessee and father moves to Oregon, Tennessee would probably immediately have jurisdiction to modify the California custody order, and it wouldn’t even need California’s permission to do so.
Misconception six: a parent with physical possession of a child always needs to obey a foreign state’s custody order
When a foreign state issues a custody order that a parent believes is not valid, that parent is not required to obey that order. Instead, that parent may require the other party to enforce that order through the UCCJEA’s registration and enforcement mechanisms.
There are registration and enforcement mechanisms within the UCCJEA for one state to enforce another state’s custody order. In South Carolina, these mechanisms are contained within code sections 63-15-350 through 382. Among these enforcement mechanisms are provisions allowing the court to issue warrants to take physical custody of a child and the authorizing the assistance of law enforcement to retrieve the child.
Under S.C. Code § 63-15-354 (A) the courts are directed to enforce another state’s custody order if that order issued in “substantial conformity” with the UCCJEA. However, when another state’s custody order is issued without this “substantial conformity,” a state is under no obligation to obey or enforce the foreign order.
The UCCJEA contains provisions authorizing the imposition of fees and costs, “including costs, communication expenses, attorney’s fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and childcare during the course of the proceedings.” S.C. Code § 63-15-372. Thus, a parent who simply refuses to comply with a foreign state’s custody order without good cause opens him or herself up to a substantial fee award. However, when the issuing state clearly lacked authority to issue a custody order, there is nothing inappropriate about requiring compliance with the registration and enforcement provisions of the UCCJEA before complying with the foreign custody order.
Many attorneys who “practice” family law do so as a small part of their overall practice and, as family law gets increasingly complex, attorneys who aren’t fully versed in multi-state custody cases shouldn’t be handling such cases. The question I tell multi-state custody litigants to ask prospective attorneys is “How does the UCCJEA apply to my case?” If the answer is “huh,” I suggest these litigants continue searching.
For further reading, please see: How is Jurisdiction Determined in a Multi-State Child Custody Case?
I am an un-wed mother with child born in Illinois. Father signed Voluntary Acknowlegdement of Paternity. I have been told that form is a legal document and that I have sole custody. I moved to Tennessee in August 2009, experienced domestic assaults. In January 2010 state made me sign Medical Support Order. I was not aware that signing that form I could not leave that state with my child. They did not transfer the Custody that I have in the state of Illinois to Tennesse. After numerous problems with the father, I decided to leave that state in May 2011 and returned to my home state. I let child go visit father in July 2011…father filed stating that I abandoned the child along with other numerous allegations. They state my son cannot go back home. I have not been accused of being an unfit mother, my stance is I have sole custody in Illinois, how can Tennessee do this. Do they have jurisdiction in this matter?
I am in PA and I had sole custody of my kids, granted by a foreign country’s court. My ex-husband, who is not the biological father of my kids, but stands in loco parentis, filed an energency custody petition (as well as a custody complaint), when I was about to relocate to another state with the kids. The judge ordered me NOT to leave the jurisdiction with the children. Did the judge err when he ordered me not leave PA even though I had sole custody of the kids at the time? Please feel free to tell me how this would play out in SC, and I will find out if a smiliar law exists in PA, but I need to start from somewhere. I am a J.D. myself. I acknowldge that no attorney-client relationship will be established by your response.
You would need to get Tennessee to relinquish jurisdiction before South Carolina could modify. You could always ask Tennesee to modify.
What is the process for getting a state to give up jurisdiction ?
I use to live in Tn . I got divorced and custody there . Now I live in SC and am having to obey the meeting place and things in this order even sense I moved. My problem is the father still lives in TN. He doesn’t meet me half way and doesn’t pay child support like he’s ordered to. What is the likelihood of me getting jurisdiction changed to SC so I can modify meeting place and get child support enforced ? We have lived in SC six years.
Kimstopbiz@yahoo.com
Thank u !
Greg,
Can you bring some clarity to this as I understand UCCJEA Section 201 in the same regard as yourself. I had a case in Florida for a dissolution of marriage with minor children established and finalized with continuing jurisdiction in Florida only for my ex-wife to take the children to Chicago midway into the case. The judge did not make her return yet established continuing jurisdiction. Within 6 months (surprise) she filed a petition to enroll in Illinois and modify my visitation requesting that all my parental rights be revoked.
The first 3 judges (2 in Florida and 1 in Illinois) felt there was no grounds for vacating visitation yet judge number 4 put up ever hurdle possible including the encouragement of estrangement between the children and I only to use his bias as grounds to vacate my visitation. After a 2 year abuse of the courts and my visitation I filed with the Illinois Appellate Court. According to their interpretation of UCCJEA Section 201 jurisdiction is limited ONLY to where the children reside provided it has been more than 6 months. This is true in UCCJA rules BUT NOT in UCCJEA. According to them a state holds jurisdiction of any property or individual residing or connected to the state.
Am I wrong with this assessment or is my understanding of the matter correct? Consequently it took the State of Florida 4 years (2 1/2 years after the judgement of the Illinois judge) to even consider relinquishing jurisdiction.
Any thoughts?
I was just in court today and as you stated, home state was not the only consideration of the judge in deciding whether he has jurisdiction over my client’s case. The NH judge will have a conference call with the MA as provided in the UCCJEA to determine which state will exercise jurisdiction over a custody modification action.
What ended up happening? Did the court
Filed for divorce in Missouri. No child support order on file. Mutual agreement for support/stipulations signed by both parties filed with decree in MO. Mom moves to Idaho w/child. Years later files a motion for change of venue with intent to modify. I retain a Idaho lawyer who advises me NOT to fight the change of venue. Judge then modifies the order to induce BOTH states. Idaho for the amount and Missouri for the duration….best of both worlds. How does the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) fall into the particular case.