Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 17, 2022.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2321
Lower Tribunal No. 21-13535
________________
Navin Chatani,
Appellant,
vs.
Heather Blaze,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby
Cynamon, Judge.
Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellant.
Steven M. Swickle, P.A., and Steven M. Swickle (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
GORDO, J.
Navin Chatani appeals a trial court’s final order dismissing his petition
to establish paternity for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R.
App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because we find the trial court correctly determined
Michigan was the home state of the minor child, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2018, Navin Chatani (“the Father”) and Heather Blaze (“the
Mother”) had a child in Florida. On November 28, 2020, the Mother traveled
to Michigan with the parties’ minor child. While the Father visited the minor
child in Michigan, the minor child never returned to Florida. On June 1, 2021,
the Mother filed a custody petition in Michigan. On July 2, 2021, the Father
filed a paternity petition in Florida alleging the trial court had jurisdiction as
Florida was the minor child’s home state because the minor child had resided
in Florida for at least six consecutive months prior to the filing of his petition.
The Mother subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Father’s petition
alleging she and the minor child had been permanent residents of Michigan
since November 2020.
On August 5, 2021, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the
motion to dismiss. The trial court noted it would need to consult with the
Michigan court prior to ruling but heard testimony from both parents
regarding whether the Mother and minor child had traveled to Michigan with
2
the intent to remain there indefinitely. The Father testified the trip was merely
a temporary absence from Florida. The Mother testified she always intended
to reside in Michigan permanently but chose not to inform the Father of this
fact. Further testimony was adduced regarding actions the Mother took to
establish Michigan as her state of legal residence and the minor child’s
connections with each state. On September 27, 2021, the trial court
conducted a jurisdictional conference with the Michigan court. Following
further testimony from each party, the trial court indicated it found the
Mother’s testimony she intended to permanently reside in Michigan since
November 2020 credible and therefore Michigan was the minor child’s home
state pursuant to section 61.514, Florida Statutes. The Michigan court
agreed Michigan was the minor child’s home state but noted it had questions
regarding whether the Mother engaged in unjustifiable conduct by
concealing her intent to reside in Michigan from the Father. The trial court
subsequently entered its final order dismissing the Father’s petition
concluding that pursuant to section 61.514 the minor child’s home state was
Michigan. This appeal followed.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
“We review orders granting a motion to dismiss under a de novo
standard of review.” Williams Island Ventures, LLC v. de la Mora,
246 So.
3
3d 471, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). A trial court’s factual determination of a
minor child’s home state under section 61.514(1), however, is reviewed for
competent, substantial evidence. See Martinez v. Lebron,
284 So. 3d 1146,
1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (reviewing a trial court’s finding that Florida was a
minor child’s home state under section 61.514 for competent, substantial
evidence); Alvarez v. Jimenez,
337 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
I. Home State Jurisdiction
The Father argues the trial court erred in dismissing his petition
because the minor child’s “habitual residence” was Florida within six months
preceding his petition as the Mother and minor child’s move to Michigan was
merely a temporary absence. Section 61.514 “is the exclusive jurisdictional
basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.” §
61.514(2), Fla. Stat. Section 61.514(1)(a) provides Florida has jurisdiction
over a child custody action if Florida was the home state of the minor child
on the date the petition was filed or was the home state of the minor child
within six months before the petition was filed. See § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
Section 61.503(7) defines a minor child’s home state as “the state in which
a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6
consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child
custody proceeding.” § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. Section 61.503(7) further states
4
a “period of temporary absence” is included in the relevant six-month period,
but a period of temporary absence is not defined.
Florida courts have interpreted temporary absence to mean “there are
two ways for Florida to qualify as the [child]’s ‘home state.’” Sarpel v. Eflanli,
65 So. 3d 1080, 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Under the first way, the minor
child must have resided in Florida for six consecutive months prior to the
date of filing of the petition. It is clear under these factual circumstances that
Florida did not have jurisdiction pursuant to the first way. Under the second,
Florida has jurisdiction if at any time during the six months preceding the
filing of the petition, Florida qualified as the minor child’s home state. See
id. The Father asserts the trial court had jurisdiction under the second
because Florida qualified as the minor child’s home state within the six
months preceding the filing of his petition despite the minor child’s
“temporary absence” in Michigan. Appellate courts, however, have
determined this second alternative to obtain jurisdiction means “that a court
may look backwards from a date the child lived in Florida, which may have
occurred as much as six months prior to the commencement of the custody
proceeding, and determine whether, at that time, the child had lived in Florida
for 6 consecutive months.” Sarpel,
65 So. 3d at 1083 (emphasis added);
see also Barnes v. Barnes,
124 So. 3d 994, 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); M.A.C.
5
v. M.D.H.,
88 So. 3d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). Here, the Father
concedes the Mother and the minor child were in Michigan for the entire
seven months preceding the date he filed his amended petition. Therefore,
there was no date the minor child resided in Florida within the six months
preceding the filing of the Father’s petition from which the Court could look
back from and determine if Florida was the minor child’s home state.
Turning to the Father’s assertion that the minor child’s time in Michigan
was a temporary absence, the trial court made a credibility finding based on
the testimony and determined the Mother never intended to return to Florida.
While we are sympathetic to the Father’s position that the Mother never
informed him of her intentions, we are constrained “to accept the factual
findings of the trial court so long as there is support for them by competent
substantial evidence.” Estate of Brock,
692 So. 2d 907, 913 (Fla. 1st DCA
1996); Hooker v. Hooker,
220 So. 3d 397, 404 (Fla. 2017) (“[T]he trial court’s
factual findings must not be disturbed on appeal unless unsupported by
competent, substantial evidence.”). Here, the trial court found the Mother
had intended to permanently reside in Michigan since November 2020 and
there was competent, substantial evidence to support that finding. As such,
the trial court did not err in finding Michigan was the minor child’s home state
and dismissing the Father’s petition.
6
II. Unjustifiable Conduct
The Father also alleges the trial court erred in refusing to accept
jurisdiction when the Mother engaged in unjustifiable conduct by continually
informing him she would eventually return to Florida when in actuality she
intended to remain permanently in Michigan with their minor child. Despite
the Father’s contention, unjustifiable conduct does not vest a Florida court
with jurisdiction. See Benson v. Evans,
901 So. 2d 893, 894–95 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005) (stating “‘unjustifiable conduct’ does not vest jurisdiction in a
court”).
Section 61.521(1), Florida Statutes, provides “if a court of this state
has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its
jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to
exercise its jurisdiction.” Essentially, section 61.521 provides that when a
party has engaged in unjustifiable conduct to establish jurisdiction under the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a Florida court
shall decline, not accept, that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is clear that
unjustifiable conduct does not confer jurisdiction on a court where it
otherwise does not have it. It simply operates as a basis for the court to
decline jurisdiction if a party engages in it. See Benson,
901 So. 2d at 895
(“‘[U]njustifiable conduct’ does not vest jurisdiction in a court; [instead]
7
‘unjustifiable conduct’ by a person seeking to invoke jurisdiction is a basis
for a court declining jurisdiction.”).
The Father briefly argues the Michigan court’s statement questioning
whether the Mother engaged in unjustifiable conduct was an invitation for the
Florida court to take jurisdiction. This argument is without merit. As
discussed, Michigan was properly determined to be the child’s home state
pursuant to section 61.514(1) and the Michigan court stated it would accept
jurisdiction despite questions regarding the Mother’s conduct. When another
state court has jurisdiction, a Florida court does not have the authority to
accept jurisdiction based solely on alleged unjustifiable conduct by a party.
See
id. at 894–95.
Affirmed.
8
