United States: Appellate Division Finds That Trial Court Erred In Divesting New Jersey Of Jurisdiction Over Custody And Parenting Time Issues

Last Updated: February 27 2014
Article by Robert A. Epstein

Decisions involving New Jersey's Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) are often very complicated matters that require courts to undertake an extremely detailed, fact-specific analysis to ensure that the issue of jurisdiction – what state or country should hear the matter – is properly made.  As a result, before you review this blog post discussing S.B. v. G.M.B., the Appellate Division's recently published (precedential) decision that I have broken down below, you may want to sit down and relax with a cup of coffee, and perhaps some Tylenol in case your head starts spinning.

Here are the pertinent facts that you need to know:

  • In May, 2011, wife obtained a final restraining order against husband.  Husband pleaded guilty to a third degree offense as to the event that gave rise to the FRO and, in July, 2012, he began a 3 year probationary term.
  • Shortly before the probationary period began, the parties were divorced, incorporating a settlement agreement into a dual judgment of divorce.
  • 4 children were born of the marriage.  The PSA stated that wife could remove the children from New Jersey to Ontario, Canada.  Husband's consent to such removal was expressly conditioned on wife's "express[ed] and irrevocabl[e] consent[]" that, until the youngest child was emancipated, New Jersey would retain continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to child custody, child support, and parenting time.
  • Wife also agreed that any orders regarding custody, support or parenting time entered by New Jersey courts would "supersede any such orders entered in Canada", that by entering into the settlement agreement, she "expressly and irrevocably assent[ed] and submit[ted]" to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey courts, that she "irrevocably consent[ed]" to receiving service of any pleadings at her residence in Canada, and that she "expressly and irrevocably waive[d] any claim or defense of improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue or forum non conveniens or any similar basis."
  • Wife moved with the kids to Canada in August, 2012.
  • In mid-September, 2012 (merely 4 months after execution of the settlement agreement), husband filed a motion asserting that wife had failed to provide him with parenting time over the Labor Day weekend.
  • In addressing the motion, the trial judge indicated that he would "sua sponte [consider] whether Ontario was a more appropriate forum under relevant statute and case law.  Upon such consideration, the trial judge determined that New Jersey was an "inconvenient forum" and that Ontario should exercise jurisdiction.
  • Husband argued in seeking enforcement of the agreement's parenting time provisions that Canada as the location for the exercise of some of his parenting time was no longer feasible because his criminal conviction barred his entry into Canada.  In fact, the settlement agreement provided,
  • "If, for any reason, the Husband is refused entry into Canada and prevented from exercising the parenting time set forth in subparagraphs (h) through (j) above, the parties shall agree on reasonable equivalent parenting time for the Husband at an agreed upon location in the United States.  The parties reserve the right to apply to the [c]ourt for a determination of this issue in the event that they cannot reach an agreement."
  • As a result, husband sought wife to bring the children to Cortland, New York (approximately half way between the parties' respective residences) for his parenting time as delineated in the settlement agreement.
  • While wife opposed the motion, she did not argue that Canada assume jurisdiction over the matter – the issue was raised and determined by the trial judge, who rendered such determination without a hearing.

On appeal, the Appellate Division analyzed the matter in connection with New Jersey's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA):

  • New Jersey acquired "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" over custody determinations when the initial order was entered because the parties and children resided in New Jersey when the judgment defining custody and parenting issues was entered by the trial court.
  • New Jersey did not lose jurisdiction based on a lack of a "significant connection" or "substantial evidence".  The move to Canada occurred only a few months before the agreement was signed, and husband remained a New Jersey resident and was still entitled to meaningful parenting time with the children in this State.
  • Based on the record below, Canada was not "an appropriate forum," let alone "a more appropriate forum," in part, because husband was denied entry into Canada because of his criminal record, where the trial court's determination that Canada could permit his entry ran directly contrary to husband's allegations.  Unlike the trial court, the Appellate Division did not believe that entry into Canada was as "readily available" as suggested by the trial court, recognized that husband would have to undergo an application process for Canada to consider such entry, and noted that Canada could still deny entry.  "By the same token, it is premature to assume he will be permitted entry."
  • The Appellate Division further took the trial court to task for its unsupported indication that, even if husband was denied entry, he could appear at Canadian proceedings by video conference.  The trial court, thus, concluded that the husband's physical presence at a proceeding in New Jersey was less appropriate than his video appearance at a Canadian proceeding.  The trial court also seemingly disregarded the indication of husband's probation officer that someone in husband's situation would normally be barred from leaving the United States (although it was noted that a court could allow him to leave for the purpose of appearing in a foreign court).  The Court definitively provided:

"We find the trial judge's declination of jurisdiction to be highly inequitable because it relegates [husband] to an attempt to litigate his parenting-time issues in a forum that may not be accessible, instead of in a jurisdiction the parties expressly and unequivocally stipulated as the forum for such disputes – a forum that unquestionably possesses jurisdiction over the disputes.  Because Canada has not been shown to be an 'appropriate' forum, we reverse."

While this component of its decision was enough for the Court, it then added that, even if Canada was an appropriate forum, it was improper for New Jersey to decline jurisdiction.  In so doing, the Appellate Division analyzed the 8 factors to address such issue under the UCCJEA:

  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:  Here, wife had an FRO and husband was serving a probationary term in New Jersey, stemming from the same incident.  The Court concluded that the trial judge gave no weight to the fact that wife stipulated to a New Jersey forum after entry of the FRO, after husband pleaded guilty, after wife planned to move to Canada, and that no other episodes of domestic violence had occurred since the first FRO was granted.
  2. Length of time the children have resided outside of New Jersey:  Wife and children lived in New Jersey throughout the marriage, and the move to Canada only occurred one month prior to the husband filing the motion at issue.  The Court concluded that the trial judge mistakenly converted the second factor into the sixth factor (addressing the children's present circumstances, and the location of evidence and witnesses to address the issue).  Since only a month had passed from when the children moved to when the motion was filed, the Appellate Division held, "This factor highly favors New Jersey's retention of jurisdiction."
  3. Distance between the New Jersey court and the court in the location that would assume jurisdiction:  Similar to factor 2, the trial court improperly considered this factor 6 as to the location of evidence and witnesses.  Analyzing this factor, the Court concluded that Canada was more convenient for wife and New jersey was more convenient for husband.
  4. The relative financial circumstances of the parties:  Wife was in a financially inferior position to husband and, as a result, this factor properly favored the Canadian forum.
  5. Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction:  The parties agreed in the settlement agreement that New Jersey would retain jurisdiction, and that this agreement was made in exchange for the husband's agreement that the wife could move to Canada with the children.  The Appellate Division, in contrast to the trial court, gave far greater weight to this factor and circumstance, finding that "The judge was greatly mistaken in this regard."
  6. Nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including the testimony of the children:  While the trial judge focused on the lack of accessibility/availability of evidence and witnesses in Canada, the Appellate Court found that the judge "overlooked" that the dispute concerned an alternative to the agreement's indication that husband had a right to parenting time at certain times in Canada.  The Court concluded that the issue was simply how could the "parenting time precluded by [husband's] ostensible inability to enter Canada be equitably replaced?"  The Court further questioned what evidence in Canada was necessary to address the issue, or if a hearing was even necessary (and, if a hearing was necessary, an analysis of difficulties a Canadian court would encounter as to examining New Jersey evidence would be required).  Ultimately the Court determined that this factor favored New Jersey because both locations had similar issues, but the children had spent their entire lives (prior to the recent move) in New Jersey.
  7. The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence:  While the trial judge noted that both courts address such issues in an expeditious manner, the Canadian court would face potential additional hurdles due to the above-issues with husband's entry into the country.  The potential additional litigation would only prolong the process.
  8. The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation:  No Canadian court was familiar with the case, and the New Jersey court certainly was in having presided over the domestic violence matter and uncontested hearing.

In finding that New Jersey should not decline jurisdiction, the Appellate Division concluded:

Those statutory factors that may suggest New Jersey's declination of jurisdiction or are in equipoise represent only the foreseeable consequences of the parties' free and voluntary agreement and should not have more weight than the agreement itself.  When viewed in that context, there are very little, if any, arguable reasons for New Jersey's declination of jurisdiction at this time.

Interestingly, in reversing the trial court's decision and directing the trial court to expeditiously resolve the parenting time issues, the Appellate Division exercised original jurisdiction, "Because of the time that has elapsed since the order was entered," and, in so doing, directed that, pending the trial court hearing from the parties on such issues, any future visitation pursuant to certain provisions of the settlement agreement occur in Niagara Falls, New York, or any other location to which the parties agreed.

Cases involving the UCCJEA are typically very fact specific and, as a result, the analysis can become quite complicated to ensure that the issue of jurisdiction is properly decided.  As a litigant, be sure to navigate through these waters with matrimonial counsel experienced in such issues.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Robert A. Epstein
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions