Stephens v. Fourth Judicial District Court, 2006 MT 21

128 P.3d 1026 (Mont. 2006) · Supreme Court of Montana · January 31, 2006 · No. No. 05-709

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana granted Brenda Kay Stephens a writ of prohibition, holding that the Fourth Judicial District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over parenting and child-custody matters under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The court held that Arkansas remained the children's home state because they had lived there for more than six consecutive months before moving to Montana and had not lived in Montana for six consecutive months when the dissolution petition was filed. The order prohibited the District Court from hearing or enforcing parenting matters but did not affect its jurisdiction over the dissolution proceeding itself.

Holdings

  1. For purposes of initial jurisdiction under section 40-7-201(1), MCA, a child's home state is determined by whether the state was the child's home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding; the inquiry is not limited to the six consecutive months immediately preceding commencement.
  2. Arkansas was the children's home state when the Montana proceeding commenced because the children had lived there for more than six consecutive months and had not lived in Montana for six consecutive months before the filing; Montana therefore lacked initial jurisdiction over the parenting and custody matters.
  3. A writ of prohibition was appropriate because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the parenting and custody matters and Stephens had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arkansas or Montana was the children's home state under the UCCJEA when Jesse commenced the Montana proceeding.
  2. Whether Montana could exercise initial child-custody jurisdiction under the significant-connection and best-interests provision when the children had not lived in Montana for six consecutive months immediately before commencement.
  3. Whether a writ of prohibition was appropriate to prevent the Montana district court from hearing, enforcing, or deciding parenting and custody matters.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (5)

  • Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25, 314 Mont. 139, 64 P.3d 997(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Fontenot, 2003 MT 242, 317 Mont. 298, 77 P.3d 206(followed)
  • Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ct. App. 2002)(followed)
  • In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. 2001)(cited)
  • Nesa v. Baten, 290 A.D.2d 663, 736 N.Y.S.2d 173 (2002)(cited)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…