In Re the Marriage of Margain and Ruiz-Bours
239 Ariz. 369
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mauricio Margain and Elsa Ruiz-Bours married in Mexico; their daughter Sophia was born in California in 2008.
- Ruiz-Bours and Sophia lived in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico from October 2010 through at least July 2012; Margain filed for dissolution in Baja California in August 2011 while Sophia had been in Mexico for >6 months.
- Mexican courts (including Mexico’s Supreme Court) upheld the Baja California family court’s jurisdiction and that court later awarded definitive legal custody of Sophia to Margain in September 2014; Ruiz-Bours did not appeal that judgment.
- In July 2012 Ruiz-Bours brought Sophia to Arizona in violation of the Mexican court’s order; Margain subsequently filed in Pima County for expedited enforcement of the Mexican custody determination.
- The Arizona trial court denied enforcement, reasoning the Mexican court’s jurisdictional analysis relied on Mexican legal criteria (marital residence/abandonment spouse) rather than the UCCJEA’s “home state” focus on where the child lived, so the Mexican judgment was not entered under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Mexico was Sophia’s home state (child lived there >6 months) and Arizona must recognize and enforce the foreign custody determination under the UCCJEA; the court also reversed the trial court’s award of fees to Ruiz-Bours and declined to award fees to Margain because of his contempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Margain) | Defendant's Argument (Ruiz-Bours) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona must enforce a Mexican child-custody determination under the UCCJEA | Mexican courts had jurisdiction and the Mexican custody decree should be enforced because Mexico was the child’s home state (Sophia lived in Mexico >6 months) | Mexican courts’ jurisdictional rules differ from the UCCJEA (they focused on marital residence/abandonment spouse); because the Mexican court did not consider the child’s residence, its judgment was not made under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA | Reversed: Arizona must enforce the Mexican custody determination — factual circumstances (home-state residency) showed Mexico was the child’s home state and the decree must be recognized/enforced under the UCCJEA |
| Whether the trial court should have analyzed only the foreign court’s legal jurisdictional rules rather than the factual circumstances underlying jurisdiction | Enforcement should hinge on whether, as a factual matter, the foreign forum was the child’s home state in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA | The trial court argued enforcement requires the foreign court to have exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA (looking to that foreign court’s legal jurisdictional criteria) | Held that the UCCJEA requires examining the factual circumstances (home-state residency), not merely whether the foreign court’s legal test mirrored the UCCJEA |
| Whether Margain’s appeal should be dismissed because of his contempt (absconding the child in violation of Arizona court orders) | Margain urged the appeal proceed despite contempt adjudication | Ruiz-Bours sought dismissal of the appeal as sanction for Margain’s contempt | Court declined to dismiss the appeal, noting both parties had unclean hands and Ruiz-Bours’s earlier removal of the child to Arizona precipitated the litigation |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and costs after reversal | Margain requested appellate fees and costs | Ruiz-Bours sought fees awarded below (trial court gave her fees) | Reversed the trial-court award of fees to Ruiz-Bours (prevailing party determination follows appeal); declined to award Margain appellate fees because of his contempt |
Key Cases Cited
- Duwyenie v. Moran, 220 Ariz. 501 (App. 2009) (standard for viewing record in light most favorable to uphold trial court)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 91 Ariz. 356 (1962) (appellate dismissal may be used as contempt sanction in extreme cases)
- Karam v. Karam, 6 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguished; concerned simultaneous-state jurisdiction analysis rather than enforcement of foreign decree)
- Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201 (App. 2002) (statutory construction principle that each phrase must be given effect)
- Melgar v. Campo, 215 Ariz. 605 (App. 2007) (de novo review for issues of statutory interpretation)