258 So. 3d 699
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Monojit Banerjee (father) and Shalini Banerjee (mother) are naturalized U.S. citizens; their two children are U.S. citizens born in 2005 and 2007.
- Family lived in Iowa until 2010, then moved together to Bangalore, India; parents separated physically in June 2014 and father left India for Lafayette, Louisiana in March 2015. The children have remained in India with the mother and never lived in Louisiana.
- Father filed for divorce and custody in Louisiana (March 2016); father claims the mother denies him visitation, that he continues to pay for the children’s expenses, and that no Indian custody proceedings have been filed.
- Trial court granted the divorce but denied custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after reviewing materials on Indian custody law and concluding India is the children’s "home state." Father appealed.
- Trial and appellate courts found India’s custody law substantially conforms to the UCCJEA and does not violate fundamental human rights; no showing India declined jurisdiction or that the children have significant connections to Louisiana.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Banerjee) | Defendant's Argument (Banerjee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Louisiana has subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody under the UCCJEA | Foreign court refused/failed to take jurisdiction; therefore Louisiana may exercise jurisdiction | India is the children’s home state and has not declined jurisdiction; children lack significant contacts with Louisiana | Louisiana lacks jurisdiction under La. R.S. 13:1813; India is home state and no evidence India declined jurisdiction |
| Whether Louisiana may assert jurisdiction under UCCJEA because substantial connections and evidence exist in Louisiana | Father resides in Louisiana and argues U.S. Embassy cannot assist without a U.S. custody judgment | Children never lived or visited Louisiana; only connection is father’s residence | No significant connections or substantial evidence in Louisiana; jurisdiction denied |
| Whether Louisiana need not apply the UCCJEA because Indian child custody law violates fundamental human rights (La. R.S. 13:1805(C)) | India’s law effectively denies father contact; India hostile to non‑citizen litigants | Indian law substantially conforms to UCCJEA; Indian courts consider best contacts and will hear cases; materials do not show systemic human rights violation | Indian custody law does not violate fundamental human rights; UCCJEA applies and must be respected |
| Whether prior jurisprudence (e.g., Amin) permits treating a foreign country as a non‑state exception to decline UCCJEA application | Father urges avoiding UCCJEA due to perceived injustices in foreign law | Indian law differs from jurisdictions (like Egypt in Amin) that justified nonrecognition; India’s scheme aligns with best‑interests/contact analysis | Amin distinguished; facts here do not support treating India as non‑compliant or ignoring UCCJEA |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C., 13 Cal.App.5th 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (California court exercised jurisdiction when children and mother had substantial connections to California after deportation)
- Gharachorloo v. Akhavan, 67 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (refused jurisdiction where children had resided in Iran for years prior to New York custody filing)
- Amin v. Bakhaty, 798 So.2d 75 (La. 2001) (Louisiana discussion of treating foreign country as state under UCCJA/UCCJEA and comparing foreign custody regimes to U.S. best‑interest standards)
- State in Interest of A.C., 643 So.2d 743 (La. 1994) (parental relationship as a basic human right considered in custody/contextual analysis)