Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court reviewed a challenge to North Dakota’s continuing jurisdiction over an interstate child-custody dispute under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The court held that North Dakota retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because the child maintained a significant connection with the state and that North Dakota was not an inconvenient forum. The court affirmed the district court and denied both parties’ requests for attorney’s fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Klein waived or failed to preserve her challenge to North Dakota's subject matter jurisdiction by stipulating to a temporary order.
- Whether the district court's jurisdictional order was an immediately appealable final order.
- Whether North Dakota retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding North Dakota was not an inconvenient forum.
- Whether either party was entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38.
Holdings
- A party cannot confer, consent to, or waive subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA by agreement or stipulation, and a subject matter jurisdiction challenge may be raised at any time during the proceeding.
- North Dakota retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because the child continued to have a significant connection with North Dakota; the statutory conditions for termination of that jurisdiction were not triggered.
- The stipulated temporary order was appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(1) because it controlled the parties' parenting time and rights for two years.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that North Dakota was not an inconvenient forum.
- Neither party was entitled to attorney's fees under N.D.R.App.P. 38.
Key quotations
“Additionally, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, or waiver.” (¶ 6)
“The absence of this phrase indicates that mere physical presence of the child within the state is sufficient for the state to find a significant connection and retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.” (¶ 12)
Factual background
Jessica Klein and Micah Winegar have one child, born in 2003. North Dakota determined paternity and initially awarded Klein primary residential responsibility; the child lived with Klein in North Dakota for approximately ten years. In 2013, primary residential responsibility was transferred to Winegar in Iowa, but the child continued to spend substantial time in North Dakota, including summers and alternating holidays, received medical treatment there, and had extended family there.
Procedural history
North Dakota initially determined paternity and awarded Klein primary residential responsibility. In 2013, primary residential responsibility was transferred to Winegar, who lived in Iowa. After Winegar moved to modify the judgment in 2015, Klein challenged North Dakota's subject matter jurisdiction and sought transfer to Iowa. The judicial referee and district court rejected her arguments, and the parties entered a stipulated temporary order addressing residential responsibility. The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees.