Ieasha Hipps v. Ruben Cabrera, 170 A.3d 199

Background

Parents (Hipps — Mother; Cabrera — Father) have two minor children; Father obtained primary physical and legal custody in a 2012 final custody order with specified visitation for Mother.
Father moved with the children to Amsterdam, New York in 2013; Mother filed emergency motions starting in 2013–2014 alleging unilateral removal and noncompliance with visitation.
A 2014 custody order acknowledged the relocation and directed the parties to attempt to modify visitation or use court mediation; Father did not return children for scheduled visits.
Mother sought contempt, discovery sanctions, and Rule 11 sanctions (alleging Father fabricated racist/violent text messages attached to his filings). Mother obtained Sprint records and noticed depositions; Father did not attend his deposition.
At a March 3, 2016 hearing, the trial court denied Rule 11 sanctions, relinquished continuing jurisdiction over custody to New York under UCCJEA principles, and denied/denied-as-moot the Mother’s contempt and discovery motions; Mother appealed.
On appeal the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Rule 11 sanctions and the relinquishment of jurisdiction, vacated the contempt/discovery rulings, and directed that the Mother may seek recusal if case returns to D.C.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 11 sanctions should issue for alleged fabricated text messages	Hipps: messages were manufactured; Sprint records would disprove Father's version and support Rule 11 sanctions	Cabrera: messages legitimate; children/other apps could explain messages; Father did not attend deposition	Denied — Sprint records would not meet clear-and-convincing standard because other means (apps/devices) could explain messages; no reversible error
Whether D.C. court erred in relinquishing exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over custody under UCCJEA §16-4602.02(a)(1)	Hipps: Father’s unilateral move shouldn’t defeat D.C. jurisdiction; Mitchell v. Hughes warns against rewarding wrongful removals	Cabrera: children have lived in New York for years; substantial evidence about children now located in New York	Affirmed — facts showed children and evidence were principally in New York; UCCJEA inconvenient-forum factors support relinquishment; not an abuse of discretion
Whether court should have held Father in contempt or sanctioned for discovery failures after relinquishing jurisdiction	Hipps: court had found prima facie contempt and should have enforced orders; discovery sanctions warranted for missed deposition and failure to produce phone	Cabrera: financial and practical difficulties in complying; court had doubts about exercising enforcement given relocation	Vacated (remanded) — court should have stayed, not denied, pending proceedings in New York; enforcement/contempt better handled by New York court or after registration there
Whether exclusion of Sprint records from evidence was improper and prejudicial	Hipps: Sprint records authenticated in deposition; exclusion improperly hindered proving fraud and credibility	Cabrera: deposition declarant availability and lack of cross-examination; Father absent from deposition	Not necessary to decide — appellate court found records would not have changed Rule 11 result; denial of sanctions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Park v. Sandwich Chef, Inc., 651 A.2d 798 (D.C. 1994) (fraud claims require particularity and clear-and-convincing proof)
Mitchell v. Hughes, 755 A.2d 456 (D.C. 2000) (court must guard against rewarding wrongful unilateral removals under prior UCCJA analysis)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (Rule 11 sanctions concern collateral abuses of judicial process and survive termination of the principal suit)
Khawam v. Wolfe, 84 A.3d 558 (D.C. 2014) (standards for appellate review of jurisdictional determinations)
Loewinger v. Stokes, 977 A.2d 901 (D.C. 2009) (civil contempt is remedial to secure compliance rather than punitive)