555 S.W.3d 449
Ky. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties: Heidi Officer (mother) and Roger Blankenship (father); two minor children who had lived in Oregon with mother since Aug 2014 except brief visits to Kentucky.
- Roger filed for dissolution in Warren Family Court, Kentucky, July 2015; parties executed an MSA stating Kentucky was the children’s "home state" and would retain jurisdiction.
- Kentucky court entered dissolution decree incorporating the MSA and made custody/time‑sharing orders; later issued orders modifying custody and granting Roger primary residential parent status.
- Heidi challenged Kentucky subject‑matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, filed CR 60.02 to set aside custody provisions and concurrently filed a custody action in Oregon; Kentucky initially agreed to relinquish jurisdiction but later vacated that relinquishment and retained jurisdiction.
- Trial court denied Heidi’s CR 60.02 relief; on appeal the Kentucky Court of Appeals held Kentucky never had subject‑matter jurisdiction because Kentucky was not the children’s UCCJEA "home state."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heidi) | Defendant's Argument (Roger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties can confer UCCJEA jurisdiction by agreement | Agreement naming Kentucky as "home state" is ineffective; court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction | Parties’ consent and MSA confer jurisdiction; failure to timely object waived challenge | Parties cannot confer UCCJEA subject‑matter jurisdiction by agreement; challenge not waived; Kentucky lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Kentucky court’s custody orders (and later modifications) are void | Orders are void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; CR 60.02 relief required | Orders were valid because parties consented and later court retained jurisdiction | Orders are void; CR 60.02 relief should have been granted to vacate custody provisions |
| Nature of UCCJEA "jurisdiction" (subject‑matter vs. case‑specific) | UCCJEA jurisdiction is subject‑matter jurisdiction that cannot be waived | "Jurisdiction" is procedural/particular‑case and can be conferred/waived by parties | UCCJEA jurisdiction is subject‑matter jurisdiction; cannot be conferred by agreement or waived |
| Whether Kentucky should have transferred/relieved custody matters to Oregon | Kentucky should have refrained and allowed Oregon (home state) to decide | Kentucky retained continuing jurisdiction under KRS 403.824 and prior orders | Kentucky should have relinquished custody jurisdiction to Oregon; all Kentucky custody orders are void |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams-Smyrichinsky v. Smyrichinsky, 467 S.W.3d 767 (Ky. 2015) (UCCJEA jurisdiction is subject‑matter jurisdiction and must exist at inception)
- Ball v. McGowan, 497 S.W.3d 245 (Ky. App. 2016) (forum‑selection/consent clauses do not control UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- Walsh-Stender v. Walsh, 307 S.W.3d 127 (Ky. App. 2009) (consent cannot cure lack of UCCJEA subject‑matter jurisdiction; orders void)
- Wahlke v. Pierce, 392 S.W.3d 426 (Ky. App. 2013) (family court lost continuing jurisdiction where statutory residency requirements were not met)
- Day v. Day, 937 S.W.2d 717 (Ky. 1997) (statutory jurisdictional prerequisites are mandatory and cannot be conferred by agreement)