Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
New Arizona Court of Appeals Decision Regarding the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
On July 16, 2021, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a decision in Hubert v. Carmony, 1 CA-CV 20-0362 FC, interpreting Arizona’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the “UCCJEA”). The UCCJEA is a series of statutes that Arizona and 48 other states have enacted regarding jurisdiction over children who are subject to family court orders.
The Father in Hubert filed a petition to establish paternity, legal decision making, and parenting time in Arizona. Mother moved with the child to Texas, and filed a petition of her own in that state. She asked the Arizona court to conference with the Texas court to determine which court had jurisdiction over the child, and argued that her petition in Texas should control the relationship. Citing an active order of protection against Father in Texas and allegations that Father committed acts of domestic violence against Mother, the Arizona court ceded jurisdiction to the Texas court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it ruled on a jurisdictional issue without making “express findings” on each of the eight factors listed in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(B), a section of the UCCJEA. The trial court further erred by not permitting the parties to participate in an evidentiary hearing on the eight factors. Those factors include:
1. Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child.
2. The length of time the child has resided outside this state.
3. The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction.
4. The relative financial circumstances of the parties.
5. Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction.
6. The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child.
7. The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence.
8. The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
The Hubert decision is relevant for a number of reasons. First, it makes it clear that jurisdictional questions under the UCCJEA cannot be resolved hastily or without affording an opportunity for all parties to be heard. Second, it is a reminder that no matter how long a statutory system is in place – the Arizona Legislature enacted the UCCJEA late 1990s – there are often questions about how courts should interpret and apply those statutes.
If you or your child’s other parent have relocated or are contemplating a relocation, the UCCJEA may apply to your child. If you have questions about how this law may impact your family court order, please contact the Moon Law Firm, PLC.