Also known as:Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act · UCCJA
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A uniform statute that prescribes the jurisdictional standards state courts must apply when determining whether to exercise authority over child custody disputes involving parties in multiple states. The act requires recognition of custody decrees issued by other states when jurisdiction was proper under its criteria. It aims to promote uniformity, prevent conflicting orders, deter abductions, and avoid jurisdictional competition among states.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Modification After Changed Circumstances
Uri Underwood obtained a custody decree in State X granting him primary custody of the child. Two years later the child moved with the other parent to State Y where the child attended school and received ongoing medical care for eight months. The State Y court found jurisdiction under the act and determined that facts arising after the original decree showed a substantial change in circumstances making modification necessary to serve the child's best interests.
Simultaneous Filings in Different States
Umar Usmani and Una Ueda filed competing custody petitions on the same day after their child had lived continuously in State D for eight months with one parent. The State D court determined it possessed jurisdiction because the child satisfied the home-state requirement while the other state lacked any qualifying basis under the act's criteria. The simultaneous filings did not divest the court of authority once the statutory test was met.
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.
What are the primary bases for initial custody jurisdiction under the act?
The act establishes four alternative bases for jurisdiction. The home-state rule applies when the child has lived in the state with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding. The significant-connection test applies when no state qualifies as home state and the child and parents have a substantial connection with the state along with available evidence. Additional bases cover cases where other courts decline jurisdiction or no other state has jurisdiction under the first three paragraphs.
How does the act interact with modification of existing custody decrees?
A court with jurisdiction under the act may not modify a prior decree unless facts arising after the decree or unknown at the time show a change in circumstances of the child or custodian and modification serves the child's best interests. The court must retain the original custodian unless the custodian agrees to modification, the child has integrated into the petitioner's family with consent, or other statutory exceptions apply.
Why was the UCCJA largely replaced by the UCCJEA?
The UCCJA produced inconsistent interpretations and allowed multiple states to claim jurisdiction in the same case. The UCCJEA clarifies the exclusive bases for jurisdiction, strengthens enforcement mechanisms, and prioritizes the home-state rule to reduce conflicts.
490 U.S. 30 (1989)
…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…