Also known as: UCCJA
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A model statute that establishes standards for determining which state court has jurisdiction to decide child-custody matters and requires recognition of decrees from other states that meet those standards.
Urban Utley and Ursula Upton obtained a custody decree in State X awarding primary custody to Ursula. Two years later Urban relocates with the child to State Y, where the child has now lived for eight months and attends school. Urban petitions State Y to modify the decree. Because State Y has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act as the child's new home state, the court may entertain the petition.
Ulysses Usher and Ulrike Ulrich divorce in State C after living there four years with their daughter. Ulrike then moves with the child to State D for an eight-month work contract. Both parents file simultaneous custody petitions, one in State C and one in State D. The court in State D determines it possesses initial jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act because the child has resided there for more than six consecutive months immediately before the filing.
In July 1978 respondent Susan Clay, then known as Susan Thompson, filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking dissolution of her marriage to petitioner David Thompson and custody of their infant son Matthew. The court initially awarded the parents joint custody of Matthew. After respondent decided to move from California to Louisiana, the California court entered an order granting her sole custody of Matthew upon her departure. This order was to remain in effect until a court investigator submitted a custody report. Respondent and Matthew moved to Louisiana in December 1980. Three months later respondent filed a petition in Louisiana state court for enforcement of the California custody decree and for sole custody, which the Louisiana court granted on April 7, 1981. Two months after that the California court awarded sole custody to petitioner. In August 1983 petitioner brought this action in the District Court for the Central District of California. He requested a declaration that the Louisiana decree was invalid and the California decree valid, and sought an injunction against enforcement of the Louisiana decree. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on the ground that petitioner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseBefore the Act, parents could remove children to another state and obtain a new custody order there, leading to conflicting decrees and forum shopping. The statute created uniform jurisdictional rules based on the child's home state or significant connections to prevent such competition and encourage recognition of valid out-of-state decrees.
A state qualifies as the home state if the child has lived there with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding. That state then has primary jurisdiction to make or modify the custody determination, and other states must defer.
The Act contains a fallback provision allowing jurisdiction in the state where the child is present when no other state can claim jurisdiction under the primary rules. This prevents a child from being left without any forum for a custody determination.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Act was a uniform law designed for enactment in every state so that jurisdictional rules would be consistent nationwide and courts would recognize and enforce sister-state decrees meeting the statutory criteria.
…recognized by federal statute. See Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 94 Stat. 3569, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A(c)(2); see also Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 9 U. L. A. § 3 (1988). : The Court suggests that there could be no legally effective abandonment because the parents consented to termination of their parental rights before a…