Held:

Reversed and Remanded

Facts: Father, a North Carolina resident, filed a verified complaint in Wake County against Mother, a resident of the U.K., to establish paternity and for child custody. The child at issue was born in the U.K. and has resided with Mother since birth, approximately two months. Mother filed a motion to dismiss asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No evidence was introduced at the hearing on the motion and the motion was denied, partly based on the trial court’s conclusion that North Carolina had subject matter jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-201(a)(2) based on the child’s and Father’s significant connection to North Carolina. Mother appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to dismiss, arguing the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Appellate jurisdiction of the interlocutory order is proper because Mother’s subject matter jurisdiction challenge is coupled with a challenge of the trial court’s ruling that Mother had sufficient contacts with NC to establish personal jurisdiction. “[S]ubject matter jurisdiction is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction.” Sl. Op. at 5.
The standard of review of whether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is a matter of law reviewed de novo.
“The UCCJEA provides a uniform set of jurisdictional rules and guidelines for the national and international enforcement of child-custody orders.” Sl. Op. at 6 (citation omitted). North Carolina courts must “treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States” in its international application of the UCCJEA “unless the foreign country’s child-custody law ‘violates fundamental principles of human rights.’ ” Sl. Op. at 7, quoting G.S. 50A-105(a). There is no allegation in Father’s complaint that the U.K.’s child-custody law violates fundamental human rights principles. The U.K. is treated as a state for purposes of the UCCJEA.
The UCCJEA includes four bases for a trial court in North Carolina to obtain subject matter jurisdiction over an initial custody determination, which include obtaining jurisdiction as a court (i) in the child’s home state, (ii) in the state with significant connection and substantial evidence, (iii) when a court of the home state of the child declines to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum, or (iv) by necessity when no other state has jurisdiction. G.S. 50A-201(a).
A court has home state jurisdiction if the State “is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding . . .” Sl. Op. at 7, quoting G.S. 50A-2-1(a)(1). For a child less than six months old, “the ‘home state’ is ‘the state in which the child lived from birth’ with a parent.” Sl. Op. at 7, quoting G.S. 50A-102(7). The child in this case was born in the U.K. and had lived in the U.K. with their mother for the two months since birth, including the date Father filed the complaint. The U.K. is the child’s home state.
North Carolina can exercise jurisdiction if a court in the child’s home state declines to exercise jurisdiction and the child and at least one parent have a “ ‘significant connection’ with North Carolina beyond ‘mere physical presence[,]’ and substantial evidence ‘concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and relationship’ is available in North Carolina.” Sl. Op. at 8, quoting G.S. 50A-201(a)(2). The trial court erred in concluding North Carolina has jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-201(a)(2). There is no evidence Father filed a complaint in the U.K. or that the U.K., as the child’s home state, declined to exercise jurisdiction. The verified complaint shows Mother and the child have significant connection to the U.K. and all evidence related to the child is located there. The trial court’s conclusion that substantial evidence is presumably available in North Carolina regarding Father’s ability to care for the child is not supported by the evidence.
A North Carolina court may obtain jurisdiction if all courts having jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-201(a)(1) (home state) or (a)(2) (significant connection/substantial evidence) decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground North Carolina “is the more appropriate forum[,]” or if “[n]o court of any other state would have jurisdiction under [G.S. 50A-201(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3)].” Sl. Op. at 9, quoting G.S. 50A-201(a)(3), (4). Father’s allegations that Mother has a diplomatic visa and will resist custody proceedings in the UK are not based on personal knowledge and cannot support a finding regarding whether the UK could exercise jurisdiction. Given the U.K. has home state jurisdiction and has not declined to exercise jurisdiction, North Carolina does not have jurisdiction as the more appropriate forum or of necessity under G.S. 50A-201(a)(3) or (4).
The North Carolina court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The order denying Mother’s motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded with instruction to dismiss the complaint.