Inconvenient forum under UCCJEA

Sara Stout Ashcraft, BridgeTower Media Newswires

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a law meant to avoid arguments between parties and states as to which state provides the appropriate forum for interstate custody issues. It has been agreed to and incorporated into law by all U.S. states and territories.

Recently, a matter came before the Fourth Department Appellate Division regarding a custody fight between parties who resided, respectively, in New York and California. (Coia v. Saavedra, 2020 NY Slip Op 03325 [June 12, 2020]). The appeal came from an Order issued by Monroe County Family Court granting the Respondent Mother’s motion to dismiss the Petitioner Father’s petitions on the ground of inconvenient forum. The Father claimed that Family Court should not have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case and appealed.

Referring to the UCCJEA, the Appellate Court pointed out that “a court having jurisdiction to make a child custody determination ‘may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances.’” (Domestic Relations Law §76-f[1]). As Coia involved a previous domestic violence incident between the parties, the Fourth Department pointed out that under the UCCJEA, one factor a court is to consider whether it is more appropriate for the court in another state to exercise jurisdiction is “whether domestic violence or mistreatment of abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child.” (DRL §76-f[2(a)]) Additional factors in considering which jurisdiction would be most appropriate are “(b) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (c) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction, (d) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; (e) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (f) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (g) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (h) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.” (id, (b)-(h)).

The Fourth Department supported Family Court’s determination that “California would be the more appropriate forum and that New York would be inconvenient.” While the record from Family Court did not indicate whether it had considered all the above factors, the Appellate Court did not remit the matter as it found the record “sufficient to allow this Court to consider those factors.” Although the Appellate Court did address every factor in determining the appropriate forum under the UCCJEA, the two factors that the Court found most pertinent were DRL §76-f[2(a)] and DRL §76-f[2(f)]: “[E]vidence that the Father abused the Mother in front of the child, that an order of protection had previously been entered against the Father in New York for domestic violence, and that the Mother moved to California to avoid any further abuse weight heavily in favor of California being the more appropriate forum to protect the safety of the Mother and the child. ... The location of relevant evidence and, to some extent, the ability of the court in each state to decide matters expeditiously also favor California as the appropriate forum. The majority of the evidence pertaining to the best interests analysis in the custody matter is located in California.”

The Fourth Department did determine, however, “that the court erred in dismissing the Father’s petitions instead of staying the proceedings pending the commencement of proceedings in California,” reinstated the Father’s petitions, and remitted the matter to Family Court for “entry of an order staying the proceedings upon the condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in California.”

—————

Sara Stout Ashcraft is a partner in Ashcraft, Franklin, Young & Peters LLP. She concentrates her practice in the areas of matrimonial and family law.