In re R.G., ___ N.C. App. ___ (March 5, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: This case involves an abuse and neglect adjudication based on allegations of sexual abuse by a caretaker living with Mother and the child. The child lived with Mother in NC from the time of the child’s adoption in November 2018 until DSS filed a petition and obtained nonsecure custody of the child in December 2021. DSS placed the child with her maternal grandmother in NC. However, in 2019, a custody order for the child was entered in NY, where father resided. Prior to the adjudicatory hearing, Mother filed petitions to register and enforce the NY custody order and requested that the juvenile action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The NC court asserted temporary emergency jurisdiction and requested a UCCJEA conference with the NY court. After the courts communicated, the NY court concluded NC was the most convenient forum for the proceedings and relinquished jurisdiction by written letter, signed by the NY judge, and filed in the NC juvenile proceeding. The NC court determined it had modification jurisdiction and adjudicated the juvenile abused and neglected. Ultimately, the court ceased reunification efforts with mother, eliminated reunification with mother as a permanent plan, and ordered guardianship to maternal grandmother. Mother appeals, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and otherwise did not comply with the UCCJEA.
- Whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is reviewed de novo.
- To obtain modification jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-203, a court must have “ ‘jurisdiction to make an initial determination under G.S. 50A-201(a)(1) [home state] or G.S. 50A-201(a)(2) [significant connection and substantial evidence]’ and the other state’s court must ‘determine[] it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-202 or that a court of this State would be a more convenient forum under G.S. 50A-207[.]’ ” Sl. Op. at 15 (quoting G.S. 50A-203). There is no dispute that NC was this child’s home state since the child lived with Mother in NC since her adoption in 2018, satisfying G.S. 50A-201(a)(1).
- G.S. 50A-203 requires the foreign state to make a jurisdictional “determination” before a NC court can modify that state’s child custody determination. There is no express requirement under G.S. 50A-203 or NC appellate opinions that the foreign state must relinquish jurisdiction by a court order. Although a court order is contemplated by the official comment to the UCCJEA and by our appellate opinions, a court order is not the only method a foreign state can reqlinquish its jurisdiction. Appellate courts have “accepted a sufficiently trustworthy proxy for a court order relinquishing jurisdiction[,]” such as a docket entry that “possesse[d] all of the substantive attributes of a court order.” Sl. Op. at 20 (citing and quoting In re T.R., 250 N.C. App 386, 391 (2016)). NC cannot dictate how another state relinquishes its jurisdiction.
- The NY court’s letter in this case was sufficient to relinquish jurisdiction over the child custody determination and allow the NC court to obtain modification jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-203. The letter contained the substantive attributes of a court order including concluding that NC is the more convenient forum for the proceedings along with supporting rationale based on facts that the child and Mother have lived in NC from the time the NY custody order was entered and there are no known connections between the allegations and the previous NY custody proceedings. The letter was signed by the trial judge, written on court letterhead and in response to the NC court’s UCCJEA requested conference, and filed by the NC court upon receipt after the NC court concluded the letter was sufficiently trustworthy.
- The NC court had modification jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to enter the adjudication and disposition order and subsequent permanency planning orders.
- The opinion disregards Mother’s remaining arguments regarding the trial court’s compliance with the UCCJEA, noting that: (1) temporary emergency jurisdiction allows a court in this State to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 50A-204 while another state has continuing exclusive jurisdiction when necessary to protect a child from mistreatment or abuse, and therefore the court was not required to stay its simultaneous proceeding due to the existence of the prior NY custody order; (2) Mother was given the opportunity to be heard on the question of jurisdiction at the pre-adjudication hearing and did not present arguments or evidence to contest jurisdiction, therefore the court did not violate G.S. 50A-110(b) regarding communication between the courts; and (3) Mother improperly challenges the NY court’s application of the convenient forum factors, as the UCCJEA places the jurisdiction determination with the original decree state and does not require NC to review another state’s jurisdiction determination; mother’s remedy is in NY, not NC.
Category:
UCCJEAStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
Modification Jurisdiction