Summary
The Supreme Court of Alaska held that Alaska had recent home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA over a child custody dispute, because the child's initial absence from Alaska was temporary and Alaska had been the child's home state within six months before the proceeding. The court further held that a preexisting California guardianship proceeding did not preempt Alaska's jurisdiction under the PKPA and UCCJEA. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether California was Julian's home state when the California guardianship proceeding commenced.
- Whether Alaska had recent-home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Julian had lived in Alaska within six months before Atkins commenced the Alaska custody proceeding, including his temporary absence in California.
- Whether the pre-existing California custody or guardianship proceeding preempted Alaska's jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and PKPA.
- What standard should govern custody between a biological parent and a third party if the issue arises on remand.
Holdings
- California was not Julian's home state when Roby commenced the California guardianship proceeding because Julian had been in California for less than six months at that time, and continued residence after commencement could not satisfy the six-month period.
- Alaska had recent-home-state jurisdiction because it was Julian's home state within six months before Atkins commenced the Alaska proceeding, and Julian's temporary absence in California had to be included in calculating the six-month period.
- The pending California proceeding did not preempt Alaska's jurisdiction because the PKPA eliminates concurrent initial jurisdiction and gives exclusive jurisdiction to the child's home state or recent home state; the UCCJEA is consistent with that rule.
- Under Turner v. Pannick, a biological parent should ordinarily receive custody over a third party unless awarding custody to the parent would clearly be detrimental to the child.
Key quotations
“A child's home state is determined at the time an action commences.” (257)
“In calculating whether Alaska is a child's home state within six months of a proceeding's commencement, a court should include temporary absences from the state.” (257)
“Under the UCCJA, a court may not exercise jurisdiction if a custody proceeding is already pending in another state, assuming that state has jurisdiction over the case. The PKPA, however, preempts this `first in time' provision, and grants exclusive jurisdiction to the child's home state.” (258)
Factual background
Julian Atkins was born in Alaska to unmarried parents, Tracy Atkins and Veronica Vigil, and had been cared for by Vigil and her family since birth. Julian traveled to California initially for a temporary visit with Vigil's mother, Julie Roby, but later remained there permanently after Vigil's decision evolved over time. Roby filed a California guardianship petition less than six months after Julian arrived in California, and Atkins filed an Alaska custody petition approximately six months and six or seven days after Julian's departure.
Procedural history
Julian Atkins was in California when his maternal grandmother petitioned a California court to become his guardian. Atkins later filed a custody petition in Alaska. The Alaska superior court granted Vigil's motion to decline jurisdiction, concluding that California was Julian's home state and that the California proceeding preempted Alaska jurisdiction. The Alaska Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion, including exercise of Alaska jurisdiction and application, as appropriate, of the clear-detriment standard governing custody between a biological parent and a third party.