Bradshaw v. Pelley-Whelan
2019 UT App 201
Utah Ct. App.2019Background:
- Child born in California on July 2, 2016. Bradshaw (mother) filed a parentage/custody petition in Utah on October 10, 2017.
- Pelley‑Whelan (father) moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing California was the child’s home state.
- The district court focused on the six‑month period before the Utah filing (April 9–October 9, 2017) and held an evidentiary hearing.
- Bradshaw offered evidence of a Utah home purchase, Utah tax returns, a Utah driver’s license and voter registration, travel and credit‑card records, and photos showing the child in Utah.
- Pelley‑Whelan produced evidence that the child was born and received medical care in California, was enrolled in activities there, most of the child’s belongings remained in California, Bradshaw maintained California residences (including a renovated Huntington Beach home), and phone records showed Bradshaw was in Utah only 55 days in 2017.
- The court found Bradshaw’s evidence unpersuasive or not timely, concluded any time away from California was a temporary absence under a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test, held California was the child’s home state, dismissed the Utah petition for lack of UCCJEA jurisdiction, and denied the protective‑order petition; Bradshaw did not challenge the court’s factual findings on appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah had subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (home‑state) | Bradshaw: child’s home state ceased to be California; Utah is home state or no home state exists | Pelley‑Whelan: child lived in California for the relevant six months; California remains home state | Court held California was child’s home state; Utah lacked jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether absences from California were "temporary" under UCCJEA | Bradshaw: absences were not temporary given Utah residence indicia | Pelley‑Whelan: absences were temporary; majority of time and indicia pointed to California | Court applied totality‑of‑circumstances, accepted findings that absences were temporary; California home state upheld |
| Whether Utah could exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction | Bradshaw: Utah should exercise emergency jurisdiction based on alleged abuse | Pelley‑Whelan: no emergency basis and child was not present in Utah when petition filed | Court: no evidence child was present in Utah at filing or that emergency jurisdiction applied; claim fails |
| Whether defendant consented to personal jurisdiction by participating/subpoena use | Bradshaw: Pelley‑Whelan consented to personal jurisdiction via subpoena power use | Pelley‑Whelan: (implicit) personal‑jurisdiction consent irrelevant if no subject‑matter jurisdiction | Court: did not reach merits because subject‑matter jurisdiction lacking; declined to address further |
Key Cases Cited
- Garba v. Ndiaye, 132 A.3d 908 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (endorsing totality‑of‑the‑circumstances approach to determine whether absences are temporary under UCCJEA)
- Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, 384 P.3d 213 (Utah 2016) (discussing home‑state analysis when child lived in a state only briefly after birth)
- Meyeres v. Meyeres, 196 P.3d 604 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (standard of review for jurisdictional and statutory interpretation questions)
- In re W.A., 63 P.3d 607 (Utah 2002) (clearly erroneous standard for review of trial court factual findings)