In re the Marriage of McDermott
175 Wash. App. 467
Wash. Ct. App.2013Background
- UCCJEA governs when Washington may issue initial child custody determinations based on the child’s home state.
- Kansas and Washington proceedings against Wendy and H.M. commenced March 29, 2012; Kansas issued temporary orders before service in Washington.
- H.M. was born in Costa Rica and lived there about six weeks, then five-and-a-half months in Kansas before moving to Washington.
- Washington court initially found no home state and Washington could exercise only if Kansas declined, per UCCJEA rules.
- Superior court later held Kansas was H.M.’s home state due to six-month period counting the Costa Rica absence as temporary, and thus Washington had no jurisdiction unless Kansas declined; no such decline occurred.
- The case centers on whether temporary absences are counted toward home-state time and how to harmonize UCCJEA provisions on home state and initial jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kansas was H.M.’s home state under the UCCJEA. | Wendy: Kansas not home state due to Costa Rica absence. | Washington judge properly treated Costa Rica absence as temporary; Kansas home state. | Kansas was home state; Washington cannot proceed absent Kansas decline. |
| Whether H.M.’s Costa Rica stay was a temporary absence to Kansas. | Costa Rica period cannot count as temporary absence since H.M. never lived in Kansas. | Temporary absence includes periods when both parents intend return; six weeks counted. | Costa Rica period counted as temporary absence; supports Kansas home state. |
| Whether Washington could exercise jurisdiction if Kansas declined to exercise. | Washington should proceed due to significant connections and substantial evidence. | If Kansas is home state and declined, Washington may exercise if conditions met; here Kansas did not decline. | Washington cannot proceed unless Kansas declines; Kansas did not decline. |
| Whether prior temporary emergency jurisdiction precluded later jurisdiction analysis. | Not precluded; later determination possible. | ||
| Whether communications requirements affected the court’s authority to determine jurisdiction. | Washington needed to consult Kansas before determining jurisdiction. | No required communication where court determines lack of jurisdiction; not a custody determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of A.C., 165 Wn.2d 568 (2009) (recognizes home-state priority under UCCJEA and discusses jurisdictional concepts)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353 (2011) (illustrates limiting a court's authority to modify another state's order under UIFSA-like framework)
- Shoop v. Kittitas County, 108 Wn.App. (2001) (discusses subject matter jurisdiction; threshold principles under Washington appellate review)
- Cole v. Harveyland, LLC, 163 Wn. App. 199 (2011) (addresses how to treat subject-matter jurisdiction and threshold jurisdictional questions)
- Marley v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533 (1994) (discusses proper understanding of 'jurisdiction' vs. 'authority' in administrative/constitutional context)