In re the Matter of: Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat v. Fadumo Noor ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1879
In re the Matter of:
Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat, petitioner,
Appellant,
vs.
Fadumo Noor,
Respondent.
Filed May 11, 2015
Affirmed
Chutich, Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-14-4121
Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat, Springfield, Missouri (pro se appellant)
Fadumo Noor, Seattle, Washington (pro se respondent)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Chutich, Judge; and
Worke, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
In this child custody matter, appellant Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat challenges
a district court order declining to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum. Because
the record supports this decision, we affirm.
FACTS
Arafat is currently a federal prisoner in Missouri with eight years left of his
sentence. Arafat and respondent Fadumo Noor are the parents of W.M.N., born in 2009.
In June 2014, Arafat filed a petition to establish custody, requesting joint legal custody,
sole physical custody to Noor, and reserving parenting time until his release.
In July 2014, the district court held an initial case management conference with
the parties appearing by telephone. Noor reported that she and W.M.N. now live in
Seattle, Washington, and have resided there since June 2013. Following the conference,
the district court questioned its jurisdiction and gave the parties 30 days to submit
affidavits establishing the prerequisites for it to exercise jurisdiction under Minnesota
Statutes section 518D.201 (2014).
Arafat submitted a statement asserting that Noor and W.M.N. still reside in
Minnesota but offered no supporting evidence. Noor did not submit an affidavit. In
August 2014, the district court issued an order requiring Noor to submit an affidavit
detailing her move to Washington. This order also stated that if Noor did not respond, it
would determine whether to exercise jurisdiction based on the record before it. Noor
again did not file an affidavit.
In October 2014, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over this
matter. It stated that even if it had jurisdiction, the record before it supported a finding
that Minnesota is an inconvenient forum. The district court further noted that Arafat will
not be able to appear in person for eight years, and the best information suggested that
2
Noor and W.M.N. live in Washington. The district court found Arafat’s speculation that
Noor plans to return to Minnesota unpersuasive. Arafat appealed.
DECISION
Arafat argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to exercise
jurisdiction in this matter. A district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a
child custody action if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and another state is a
more appropriate forum. Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(a) (2014). A district court may raise
this issue on its own motion. Id. A district court has broad discretion to decline to
exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum and will not be reversed absent an abuse of
that discretion. Danielson v. Nat’l Supply Co., 670 N.W.2d 1, 9-10 (Minn. App. 2003),
review denied (Minn. Dec. 16, 2003).
Arafat claims that the district court abused its discretion because it erroneously
relied on Noor’s “ipse dixit”1 assertions that she and W.M.N. now live in Washington.
But the only support for Arafat’s contention that Noor lives in Minnesota is his own “ipse
dixit” assertions that she does not live in Washington. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by finding his claims unpersuasive. Cf. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203,
210 (Minn. 1988) (stating that appellate courts defer to district courts’ credibility
determinations).
Arafat’s claim that Noor resides in Minnesota because she was served in
Minnesota is also meritless. Noor was not personally served in Minnesota; Noor’s sister
1
“Ipse dixit” is a Latin phrase defined as “[s]omething asserted but not proved.” Black’s
Law Dictionary 905 (9th ed. 2009).
3
accepted service at the address that Arafat provided. The sister then telephoned Noor to
inform her that she received a custody petition from Arafat. These facts do not support
Arafat’s claim that Noor still resides in Minnesota.
Arafat further contends that the district court abused its discretion because it
ignored its order requiring Noor to submit documentation of her move to Washington,
which she failed to provide to the district court. But this claim also fails. The district
court cautioned Noor that if she did not provide this documentation, it would decide the
issue based on the record before it. The district court then followed its word and ruled
accordingly even though Noor did not respond.
In sum, because Arafat’s assertions that Noor resides in Minnesota are
unsupported and unsubstantiated, the district court properly exercised its discretion in
declining to exercise jurisdiction.
Affirmed.
4