393 S.W.3d 113
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Father filed a petition in Jackson County, Missouri seeking paternity, custody, visitation, and support, asserting Mother and Child resided in Missouri and that Child was born in California.
- Mother contends Child has always resided in California; California is Child's home state per UCCJEA, and Missouri lacks jurisdiction.
- California Department of Child Support Services obtained DNA testing confirming Father as the biological father.
- Guardian ad litem was appointed for Child; trial court held hearings on jurisdiction and ultimately dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the Child.
- Missouri court recognized both personal and subject matter jurisdiction concepts and analyzed UPA, UIFSA, and UCCJEA interplay for interstate parenting issues.
- Court concluded California is Child’s home state; custody jurisdiction lies there, but paternity may be pursued in Missouri; the dismissal as to custody was affirmed, while the paternity portion was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Missouri have personal jurisdiction under UPA/UIFSA? | Father argues Missouri may exercise PJ via UPA §210.829.2 and UIFSA §454.1515(a)(6). | Mother asserts UCCJEA California home state and lack of Missouri jurisdiction; no PJ. | Yes for paternity under UIFSA/UPA; no for custody; PJ established under UIFSA/UPA for paternity. |
| Is California the Child’s home state (UCCJEA) and therefore controlling for custody? | Child resided in California; Missouri status as home state claimed via six-month rule not satisfied. | California is home state; Missouri has no custody jurisdiction if home state exists. | California is child’s home state; Missouri lacks custody jurisdiction. |
| May the Missouri court proceed with paternity while custody is governed by California? | UPA/UIFSA can determine paternity; UCCJEA may bifurcate custody, but paternity can be decided separately. | Custody should be heard in California; Missouri cannot decide custody. | Court remanded for paternity proceedings; custody determination affirmed as to lack of Missouri jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb ex rel. v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (two types of jurisdiction and constitutional basis)
- Hightower v. Myers, 304 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2010) (subject matter jurisdiction; UPA/UIFSA/UCCJEA interplay)
- Ketteman v. Ketteman, 347 S.W.3d 647 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction from statutory authority)
- Al-Hawarey v. Al-Hawarey, 388 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (UPA/UIFSA interplay and jurisdiction guidance)
- Fry v. Fry (In re Marriage of Fry), 108 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (uniformity in paternity determinations; not exclusive method)