Nevares v. Adoptive Couple
2016 UT 39
| Utah | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Bobby Nevares, a Colorado resident, filed in Utah (Oct 2010) to establish paternity and custody of a child (Child) born in Utah Sept 29, 2010 after mother (also a Colorado resident) traveled to Utah and relinquished the child to a Utah adoption agency.
- The adoptive couple (from Illinois) received custody in Utah the day after birth and returned to Illinois with Child; Child lived in Illinois from about day 9 of life onward.
- Nevares initially lost in district court on procedural grounds; this Court in Nevares I reversed and remanded on state-law/due-process grounds but did not determine jurisdiction.
- After remand the adoptive couple intervened and moved to dismiss under the UCCJEA, asserting Illinois (not Utah) had jurisdiction because Child had resided in Illinois for years and Illinois had an active adoption/custody proceeding with interim custody.
- The Utah district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding Utah lacked UCCJEA initial-custody jurisdiction and Illinois was the appropriate forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah has subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make an initial child custody determination | Nevares argued Utah could hear his paternity/custody claim (filed in Utah first) and contested application of UCCJEA limits | Adoptive Couple argued UCCJEA gives jurisdiction to Illinois because Child and adoptive parents have significant connections and substantial evidence is in Illinois | Held: Utah lacks UCCJEA jurisdiction; Illinois has jurisdiction under §201(1)(b) because Child has lived in Illinois long-term and significant connections/substantial evidence exist there |
| Whether Utah was Child’s "home state" when Nevares filed | Nevares contended Utah was home state (Child born there) or otherwise Utah remains appropriate forum | Adoptive Couple showed Child had moved to Illinois 12 days before suit and had lived there >6 months thereafter | Held: Not home state at filing; Utah was not home state under UCCJEA definition |
| Whether PKPA overrides UCCJEA claim of lack of jurisdiction (because Nevares filed first) | Nevares relied on PKPA to argue Utah should retain jurisdiction since his Utah suit preceded Illinois action | Adoptive Couple argued UCCJEA and PKPA are harmonized; PKPA does not create jurisdiction beyond the UCCJEA framework | Held: PKPA does not supply subject-matter jurisdiction beyond UCCJEA; Utah still lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether challenges to Illinois personal jurisdiction or adoptive couple’s conduct cure Utah’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Nevares argued Illinois proceedings are defective and adoptive couple acted improperly, so Utah should proceed | Adoptive Couple argued such objections belong to Illinois courts handling the adoption/custody matter | Held: Such defenses/attacks are for Illinois court to adjudicate; they do not create Utah subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Nevares v. M.L.S., 345 P.3d 719 (Utah 2015) (this Court’s prior decision reversing dismissal on perfection-of-rights due-process grounds)
- Summerhaze Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance, 332 P.3d 908 (Utah 2014) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
- Ramsay v. Kane County Human Res. Special Serv. Dist., 322 P.3d 1163 (Utah 2014) (if a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, its relief is limited to dismissal)
- In re L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011) (UCCJEA and PKPA harmonization and identical bases for initial jurisdiction)
- Doe v. Baby Girl, 657 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 2008) (analysis that an infant transported days after birth may have no home state under UCCJEA)
- In re Baby Girl F., 932 N.E.2d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008) (similar conclusion regarding home-state analysis when newborn moved between states)