In the Interest of A.A.
354 P.3d 1205
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Parents married in Kansas (2002) but lived in Mississippi and had two children; Mother later moved the children to Kansas.
- Mississippi chancery court conducted a custody trial (Dec. 2010) and awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody, with Father limited to supervised visitation; the court found evidence raising concerns about sexual abuse allegations against the son.
- Kansas authorities filed child-in-need-of-care petitions (Oct. 2011); a Kansas pro tem judge initially found jurisdiction without apparent UCCJEA analysis; Kansas adjudicated the children in need of care after both parents entered no-contest statements (Feb. 2012).
- Over roughly two years, Kansas ordered increasingly expanded unsupervised visitation for Father; in Dec. 2012 the Mississippi court issued an order addressing contempt/child-support and contained a paragraph saying some contempt issues could be transferred to Kansas.
- Kansas held a trial (Oct. 2013), then (Jan.–June 2014) entered orders permanently transferring custody to Father; Mother appealed arguing Kansas lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Father/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kansas had subject-matter jurisdiction over custody given Mississippi's prior custody order | Mississippi was the children’s home state and had made the initial custody determination; Kansas lacked jurisdiction absent UCCJEA exceptions | Kansas/State argued Kansas had jurisdiction via emergency authority and/or Mississippi’s December 2012 transfer of jurisdiction | Kansas lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; Mississippi retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction absent valid transfer or emergency |
| Whether an emergency exception under the UCCJEA justified Kansas action | No true emergency; factual record did not show immediate physical threat or abandonment | State argued emergency or urgent child-welfare concerns justified Kansas orders | No emergency existed; emergency jurisdiction is limited and only allows temporary orders, not permanent transfers |
| Whether Mississippi’s Dec. 2012 order transferred custody jurisdiction to Kansas under the UCCJEA | The order did not contain required findings (significant connections lost or substantial evidence unavailable) and addressed contempt/child-support only | Father/State argued the December order (and judge-to-judge phone call) effectively transferred jurisdiction | The December order was ambiguous and did not show required UCCJEA findings; informal phone agreement insufficient; transfer invalid |
| Whether Mother waived jurisdictional objection or was barred by equitable doctrines | Objection to subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised anytime | Father/State argued waiver and concurrent jurisdiction under Kansas child-in-need-of-care statute | Waiver/equitable defenses rejected; Kansas child-in-need-of-care statute is expressly subject to the UCCJEA, so UCCJEA controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas & Pacific Railway v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway, 270 U.S. 266 (1926) (every general-jurisdiction court may determine whether conditions for its exercise of jurisdiction exist)
- In re Estate of Heiman, 44 Kan. App. 2d 764 (2010) (Kansas district courts have broad original jurisdiction)
- Fox v. Fox, 50 Kan. App. 2d 62 (2014) (subject-matter jurisdiction objections cannot be waived)
- Ryser v. Kansas Board of Healing Arts, 295 Kan. 452 (2012) (court has independent duty to ensure it has jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Anderson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 754 (1998) (emergency-jurisdiction provisions are narrow and reserved for extraordinary circumstances)