Norris v. Norris
2015 Alas. LEXIS 29
| Alaska | 2015Background
- Parents (Briana Belisle and Richard “Keith” Norris) and their son Grant moved from Fairbanks, Alaska to Mississippi in July 2012 to try to save their marriage; most household goods and official changes of address accompanied the move.
- The family leased a Mississippi home for at least a year, opened bank accounts, obtained WIC assistance, sought local medical care and daycare for the children, and discussed buying a house.
- The couple separated in September 2012; Keith filed for divorce in Mississippi on October 2, 2012 and the parties signed a temporary joint custody order there.
- Two months later Briana took Grant to Alaska and filed for divorce in Alaska (Dec. 26, 2012); Keith moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- The Alaska superior court, after an evidentiary hearing on reconsideration, found the move to Mississippi was permanent (so Alaska was not the child’s home state), that Mississippi was not the child’s home state either (less than six months’ residence), but that Grant had significant connections to Mississippi and substantial evidence was there; it dismissed the Alaska case because Mississippi had first issued a custody determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Briana) | Defendant's Argument (Keith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska retained "home state" jurisdiction when Mississippi issued the October 2012 custody order | The Mississippi order lacked jurisdiction because the move to Mississippi was only a temporary absence; Alaska remained the child’s home state | Move was permanent in July 2012 so Alaska lost home-state status and Mississippi was the proper forum | Court held the move was permanent; Alaska was not the home state by Oct. 2012, and Mississippi likewise lacked six months’ residence, so no home-state existed then |
| Whether "recent home state" jurisdiction (child was home state within 6 months and a parent remains in that state) supported Alaska jurisdiction | Alaska argued it was the child’s recent home state and a parent continued to live there | Keith argued no parent remained in Alaska when Mississippi suit was filed | Held no recent-home-state basis: neither parent remained living in Alaska when Mississippi action commenced |
| Whether Mississippi satisfied the UCCJEA back-up basis (significant connections + substantial evidence) | Briana argued Mississippi lacked sufficient "significant connections"/"substantial evidence" to support jurisdiction | Keith argued Grant and family ties, daycare, medical care, extended family, and other evidence in Mississippi satisfied the standard | Held Mississippi had significant connections and substantial evidence; thus Mississippi had jurisdiction to issue the initial custody order; Alaska lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed |
| Whether the superior court abused discretion in holding an evidentiary hearing and timing of reconsideration | Briana contended new evidence should not be accepted on reconsideration and that the motion was deemed denied by Rule 77(k)(4) | Court explained reconsideration may correct an earlier erroneous ruling and subject-matter jurisdiction can be addressed at any time | Held no abuse of discretion: evidentiary hearing appropriate; Rule 77 timing argument inapplicable to subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Steven v. Nicole, 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013) (discusses substantial-evidence inquiry under UCCJEA)
- Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008) (addresses UCCJEA significant-connection and evidence considerations)
- Limeres v. Limeres, 320 P.3d 291 (Alaska 2014) (standard of review for factual findings)
- Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little Squaw Gold Mining Co., 299 P.3d 148 (Alaska 2012) (reconsideration may be appropriate to correct an earlier erroneous ruling)
- Hawkins v. Attatayuk, 322 P.3d 891 (Alaska 2014) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage)