J.J. v. B.A.
68 A.3d 721
D.C.2013Background
- J.J. appeals a DC civil protection order (CPO) issued Sept. 15, 2011 at A.'s request, following Maryland custody litigation that produced a Sept. 13, 2011 consent custody order.
- Maryland order required joint custody but sole physical custody to A.; it included a stipulation that A. would endeavor to dismiss the DC restraining order.
- DC CPO proceeding involved allegations of threats, stalking, harassment, intrafamily email access, and harm to Z.A.; J.J. testified to her and Z.A.'s fear.
- Trial judge granted A.'s CPO petition; J.J. appealed arguing Maryland order controlled and DC court should not proceed.
- Issue centered on whether A. complied with the Maryland order to endeavor to dismiss the DC CPO and whether Full Faith and Credit/comity required respect for that order.
- Court reversed, vacating the DC CPO and addressing limits of full faith and credit across jurisdictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A. complied with Maryland order to endeavor to dismiss DC CPO | J.J. asserts A. failed to comply | A. contends he endeavored to dismiss | No substantial compliance; order breached and DC CPO invalidated. |
| Whether Full Faith and Credit requires enforcing Maryland consent order | Full Faith and Credit requires honoring out-of-state judgments | Credit applies to judgments, not to the enforcement of acts the other state ordered | Clause requires recognition of judgments; here, conflicts render DC CPO inappropriate. |
| Role of comity in cross-jurisdictional orders | Comity supports enforcing the Maryland order | Comity does not justify overriding Maryland order | Comity supports honoring the Maryland order and vacating the DC CPO. |
| Whether Maryland order transgressed DC authority or res judicata principles | No transgression; Maryland order valid | Potential interference with DC proceedings | Maryland order did not intrude improperly; conflict with DC order invalidates CPO. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37 (D.C.1988) (court may require construction/modification of orders; duty to comply diligently)
- Link v. District of Columbia, 650 A.2d 929 (D.C.1994) (compliance with court orders emphasized)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1998) (full faith and credit for judgments is exacting; no public policy exception)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003) (distinguishes credit to laws vs. judgments; no roving public policy exception)
- Mills v. Duryee, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 481 (U.S. 1813) (historical view on full faith and credit of judgments)
- Rollins v. Rollins, 602 A.2d 1121 (D.C.1992) (non-finality of certain custody orders; limits on finality for FFC purposes)
- Hooks v. Hooks, 771 F.2d 935 (6th Cir.1985) (consent orders and full faith and credit when transjudicial)
- Nader v. Serody, 43 A.3d 327 (D.C.2012) (recognition of judgments in DC for cross-jurisdictional enforcement)
- Glus v. Brooklyn Terminal, 359 U.S. 231 (U.S.1959) (no man may profit from his own wrong; respect for judgment)