Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of Alysha Instasi’s motion to modify a Washington child custody judgment because the requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act were not satisfied. The court held that Washington had not relinquished exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, determined North Dakota was a more convenient forum, or determined that the children and parents no longer resided in Washington; communication with the Washington court was therefore discretionary rather than required.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the North Dakota district court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to modify the Washington child custody judgment.
- Whether the North Dakota district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction.
- Whether the North Dakota district court was required to communicate with the Washington court regarding jurisdiction.
Holdings
- North Dakota lacked jurisdiction to modify the Washington child custody judgment because the requirements of N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-14 were not satisfied.
- Communication with the Washington court was not required because no simultaneous child custody proceeding was pending in Washington; discretionary communication was permitted but not mandatory.
Key quotations
“Except as otherwise provided in section 14-14.1-15, a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 14-14.1-12” (¶ 7)
Factual background
A Washington court entered a 2015 judgment concerning the parties' two children, including residential responsibility, parenting time, and child support. Instasi and the children had reportedly lived in North Dakota since October 2015. Instasi sought to amend the Washington judgment in North Dakota, but neither Washington nor North Dakota had determined that Washington no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, that North Dakota was a more convenient forum, or that the children and both parents no longer resided in Washington.
Procedural history
Instasi moved in North Dakota district court to amend a Washington child custody judgment. After Hiebert failed to respond, the district court entered a default judgment. The court later vacated the default judgment after Hiebert moved to vacate it, dismissed Instasi's motion for lack of jurisdiction, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.