DocketNumber: No. FA98-0415185S
Citation Numbers: 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 703
Judges: STEVENS, J.
Filed Date: 1/7/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Pending before the court is the mother's motion for Connecticut to exercise jurisdiction over the father's petition to modify the custody of the children. When the mother's motion first came before the court, the parties represented that the mother had filed a motion to dismiss the father's custody CT Page 704 petition and that this motion was scheduled to be heard soon in Michigan. Pursuant to Sec. 46b-96(c) of the General Statutes, this court stayed any action in Connecticut pending review of the Michigan court's disposition of the motion to dismiss and pending this court's communication with the presiding judge in Michigan about the jurisdictional issue. When the Michigan court denied the motion to dismiss, the mother returned to Connecticut requesting that her motion for Connecticut to hear the father's custody petition be granted. She argued that Michigan had erroneously found that it had jurisdiction to consider the father's motion to modify custody and that Michigan's denial of the motion was not "substantially in conformity" with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. C.G.S. Sec. 46b-96(a) ("UCCJA"). In response, the Connecticut court directed the mother to acquire and file a transcript of the Michigan court hearing on the mother's motion to dismiss. A review of this transcript revealed that contrary to her representation, her motion to dismiss alleged that Michigan was an inconvenient forum, but did not allege that Michigan lacked jurisdiction or that Connecticut had exclusive jurisdiction. Thus this transcript filed by the mother in support of her motion did not establish that Michigan was proceeding without a jurisdictional basis or without substantial compliance with the UCCJA.
Subsequently, pursuant to Sec. 46b-96(c), the undersigned spoke with Judge Robert Spillard of the Family Division, Michigan Circuit Court, County of St. Clair regarding the case and the jurisdictional issues being raised. This discussion focused on the following items: that the divorce decree entered in Michigan; that the mother had filed an answer to the father's custody petition in the Michigan court in which a jurisdictional challenge was not raised; that the mother had stipulated to a custody study in Michigan and this study was nearing completion; and that the mother had not filed a motion in Michigan contesting Michigan's jurisdiction to proceed in the case.
Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, when a dispute arises over what state court should hear a custody case, the court is required to determine whether it has exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction with another state, and if the court has concurrent jurisdiction, it must then decide whether its jurisdiction should be exercised. See Muller v.Muller,
On this record, the mother's motion for the Connecticut court to exercise jurisdiction over the father's custody petition isdenied. The mother has not met her burden of showing that Michigan is not acting in substantial conformity with the UCCJA or that Connecticut has exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy. Therefore, under the provisions of the UCCJA, this court is required to stay the Connecticut proceedings as Michigan has indicated its intention to proceed with the custody evaluation and determination. C.G.S. Sec. 46b-96. The court appreciates the significance of the fact that the children reside in Connecticut and the emphasis often placed on having custody proceedings heard in the children's home state. In addition, under the UCCJA this court has the authority to determine whether a court of another state is acting substantially in conformity with the Act and the court is not required to accept conclusory rulings or generalized assertions by another state court that it has jurisdiction. See Lynch v. Lynch,
However, the jurisdictional issue has not been specifically raised in Michigan, despite the mother's clear opportunity to do so, and the Michigan court has not issued any final or preliminary decisions in the case which would require it to make an explicit jurisdictional finding in accordance with the UCCJA. The Michigan court did deny a motion claiming that Connecticut is a more appropriate forum. However, the question whether Michigan is an "inconvenient forum" is an entirely different question from whether Michigan lacks jurisdiction altogether. Muller v. Muller, supra,
Michigan may have jurisdiction under Michigan's equivalent to Sec. 46b-93(a)(2) which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction if it is in the best interests of the child because one parent has a significant connection with the state and there is available in the state "substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships." See Bivens v. Bivens,
Additionally, comity suggests that Michigan itself should ordinarily have the first opportunity to determine and articulate the basis for its own exercise of jurisdiction. Such a situation is not presented in every case, but this opportunity is especially justified on the specific facts of this case. There are no emergency circumstances presented here and the record does not clearly establish that this court has exclusive, as compared to concurrent, jurisdiction with Michigan. Moreover, the mother CT Page 707 has retained Michigan counsel, filed an appearance, and participated in the Michigan proceedings. Thus this case is distinguishable from the many cases in which another court has made a custody decision and the forum court is required to review this decision and determine whether it is in substantial compliance with the UCCJA and should be enforced. One of the purposes of the UCCJA is to discourage forum shopping, and the granting of the mother's motion on this record would not be consistent with this goal.
In reaching this decision the court has considered the provisions of the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act.
Therefore, the motion for Connecticut to exercise jurisdiction is hereby denied on the present record and the stay of the Connecticut proceedings previously ordered by the court shall continue until further order of the court. This matter is hereby scheduled for a status conference on February 15, 1998 at 9:30 a.m.
So ordered.
Stevens, J. CT Page 708