Schirado v. Foote

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded a dismissal of a paternity and child-custody action. The court held that the district court needed to make additional factual findings under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act concerning the child’s home state and whether the maternal grandparents were persons acting as parents. The court also directed clarification of the district court’s contempt and sanctions order.

Holdings

1. The district court's dismissal order was insufficient because it did not specify whether the home-state determination rested on the child living with Foote, with Foote's parents, or with both, and it did not make the factual findings necessary for appellate review. The dismissal therefore had to be reversed and remanded.
2. For purposes of determining whether a nonparent is a person acting as a parent under the UCCJEA, the nonparent's claimed right to legal custody must occur before or simultaneously with the initial filing of the relevant litigation.
3. The Indian Child Welfare Act did not control because the case involved an initial custody determination, not one of the foster-care, termination, preadoptive, or adoptive proceedings covered by the ICWA. The UCCJEA supplied the exclusive jurisdictional basis for the custody dispute.
4. The district court had jurisdiction to establish paternity, but jurisdiction over the paternity action did not automatically confer jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination.
5. The district court had to clarify whether its contempt and sanctions order remained valid and whether the sanction was related to matters over which the court retained jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly determined that the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was the child's home state under the UCCJEA.
2. Whether the district court adequately determined whether the child lived with Foote, or with Foote's parents as persons acting as parents, for the six consecutive months preceding commencement of the custody proceeding.
3. Whether a nonparent's claimed right to legal custody under the UCCJEA must exist before or simultaneously with the filing of the custody proceeding.
4. Whether the district court properly dismissed the action without clarifying the status and jurisdictional basis of its contempt and sanctions order.
5. Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act supplied the exclusive jurisdictional basis for the initial custody determination.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded