Christien Freeman v. Steven Wallace
75420-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Apr 17, 2017Background
- Freeman (mother) and Wallace (father) had a child in 2009; a Washington DSHS consent order (2009) listed Freeman as custodial parent and Wallace as noncustodial with support obligations.
- Father moved to Tennessee in 2010; in Feb. 2011 he petitioned a Tennessee juvenile court for custody after Freeman and the child were in Tennessee; temporary custody/support orders were entered in March 2011 after Freeman did not appear.
- The Tennessee orders awarded the father exclusive custody and support; the orders recited proper service.
- The family returned to Washington mid-2011; DSHS later sent Freeman a notice in 2012 listing her as noncustodial and showing arrears.
- Freeman moved in King County Superior Court to vacate the Tennessee orders under CR 60(b) (claims: lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, lack of personal jurisdiction/notice, UIFSA exclusivity, fraud/procedural irregularities). The superior court denied relief; Freeman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Freeman's Argument | Wallace's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Tennessee custody/support orders were void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | UCCJEA deprived Tennessee of authority to enter custody/support orders; orders therefore void | UCCJEA does not create or limit subject-matter jurisdiction; it governs which state may exercise jurisdiction but not the constitutional grant of subject-matter jurisdiction | Court: UCCJEA does not divest subject-matter jurisdiction; Tennessee orders not void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the Tennessee orders were void for lack of personal jurisdiction/notice (due process) | Freeman received inadequate notice and was denied an opportunity to be heard; default orders deprived her of due process | Record shows Freeman admitted receiving several days' notice; Tennessee order recites proper service; Freeman failed to present evidence she lacked notice | Court: Freeman failed to show lack of notice or denial of opportunity to be heard; no voiding on personal-jurisdiction grounds |
| Whether the Tennessee court unlawfully modified a prior Washington support order in violation of UIFSA (exclusive continuing jurisdiction) | UIFSA gave Washington exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the 2009 DSHS support order; Tennessee lacked authority to modify it | UIFSA limits a court’s authority to modify another state’s support order but does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction; exceeding authority is an error of law, not voidness | Court: If Tennessee exceeded UIFSA authority, that would be an error of law (appealable), not lack of jurisdiction; CR 60(b)(5) relief not warranted |
| Whether relief under CR 60(b)(6) or (11) is warranted for inequity, fraud, or extraordinary circumstances | Freeman alleged fraud/procedural irregularities and competing arrears under two orders warranting relief and vacatur | Freeman produced no compelling evidence of fraud, extraneous irregularities, or changed equities; motion was brought years after the orders without adequate justification | Court: Denial of CR 60(b)(6) and (11) affirmed—no extraordinary circumstances shown and motion was not brought within a reasonable time |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of A.C., 165 Wn.2d 568 (discussing UCCJEA purpose and terminology)
- In re Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353 (explaining UIFSA limits authority to grant certain relief but does not deprive subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of McDermott, 175 Wn. App. 467 (clarifying UCCJEA does not divest superior courts of subject-matter jurisdiction)