Also known as: UCCJEA
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A uniform act that establishes standards for determining which state court may exercise jurisdiction over child custody and visitation disputes. It prioritizes the child's home state for initial custody determinations and confers continuing exclusive jurisdiction on the court that issued the original order. The act also supplies procedures for registering and enforcing out-of-state custody determinations.
Urban Utley, a resident of County D for ten years, files an adoption petition for a teenager in County C court based solely on his employment at a nonprofit headquartered there. The court must decide whether the UCCJEA's exclusion of adoption proceedings leaves jurisdiction to be determined under the state's separate residency statute for adoption petitions.
After a State Q1 court issues a detailed visitation schedule allowing shipboard visits during school breaks, the custodial parent refuses visits once the other parent relocates to State R1. The noncustodial parent petitions the State R1 court for temporary enforcement of the existing schedule. The court may issue a time-limited order directing compliance without modifying the original determination.
In December 2008 Birth Mother, who is predominantly Hispanic, and Biological Father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, became engaged. One month later Birth Mother informed Biological Father that she was pregnant. After learning of the pregnancy Biological Father asked Birth Mother to move up the wedding date but refused to provide financial support until after they married. The couple's relationship deteriorated and Birth Mother broke off the engagement in May 2009. In June 2009 Birth Mother sent Biological Father a text message asking whether he would rather pay child support or relinquish his parental rights; Biological Father responded via text that he relinquished his rights. Birth Mother decided to place the child for adoption. Working through a private adoption agency she selected Adoptive Couple, non-Indians living in South Carolina. Adoptive Couple supported Birth Mother emotionally and financially throughout the pregnancy and were present at Baby Girl's birth in Oklahoma on September 15, 2009. The next morning Birth Mother signed forms relinquishing her parental rights and consenting to the adoption. Adoptive Couple initiated adoption proceedings in South Carolina a few days later and returned there with Baby Girl. It is undisputed that for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl's birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl. He had the ability to do so. Approximately four months after the birth Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. Biological Father signed papers stating that he accepted service and was not contesting the adoption, but later testified that he thought he was relinquishing his rights to Birth Mother. Biological Father contacted a lawyer the day after signing the papers and subsequently requested a stay of the adoption proceedings. In the adoption proceedings Biological Father sought custody and stated that he did not consent to the adoption. A paternity test verified that he was Baby Girl's biological father. A trial took place in the South Carolina Family Court in September 2011 by which time Baby Girl was two years old. The Family Court denied Adoptive Couple's petition for adoption and awarded custody to Biological Father. On December 31, 2011 at the age of 27 months Baby Girl was handed over to Biological Father whom she had never met. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the adoption and the award of custody to Biological Father. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The home state where the child has lived for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement has primary jurisdiction. If no state qualifies as the home state, a court may exercise jurisdiction based on significant connections and substantial evidence concerning the child's care.
The original court retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until it determines that neither the child nor the child and a parent have a significant connection with the state and that substantial evidence is no longer available there. Jurisdiction also ends when a court determines that the child, parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the state.
…Indian”). The majority’s interpretation of ICWA is also inconsistent with the views of 18 States that have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The UCCJEA is a uniform act designed to avoid jurisdictional conflicts between States in child custody proceedings. See Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act §101…
…and living children. : Other states have considered the question in the context of the predecessor statute to the UCCJEA, the Uniform
Yes. A court lacking modification jurisdiction may still enter a temporary enforcement order that supplies logistical details to make an out-of-state visitation schedule effective, provided the order is time-limited and does not alter the substantive terms of the original determination.
No. The act expressly excludes adoption from its coverage. Most states have filled the resulting jurisdictional gap by either adding adoption to the proceedings governed by the UCCJEA or by adopting the jurisdictional provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act.
The petition and order must be served by a method authorized under forum state law on both the respondent and any person who has physical custody of the child. Proper service on both categories is required before the court may enforce the order.