199 Conn.App. 761
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff (Parisi) sought postjudgment modification in Connecticut of a Florida dissolution judgment that addressed custody of the parties’ minor child.
- Florida final judgment (March 2016) found Florida was the child’s home state, retained jurisdiction to enforce/modify the decree, and thus made the initial child custody determination.
- After the dissolution, Parisi filed a supplemental petition to modify in Florida (April 2017), later withdrew it (Sept. 13, 2018); the defendant (Niblett) filed an emergency motion (Aug. 9, 2018) and then her own modification petition (Sept. 22, 2018).
- Parisi moved to Connecticut and filed a modification action there (Oct. 9, 2018); the Connecticut trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after conferring with the Florida court, which expressly retained jurisdiction.
- Judge Elgo concurred in part and dissented in part: he would affirm the trial court’s dismissal, reasoning that Connecticut lacked jurisdiction under Connecticut’s UCCJEA statutes because Florida was the initial custody forum and retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction given pending proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Judge Elgo) |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the relevant "child custody proceeding" for determining home state under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b‑115k(a)(1)? | Connecticut’s modification filing is the relevant proceeding. | The Florida dissolution was the initial child custody proceeding; that date controls. | The initial Florida proceeding is the relevant "child custody proceeding." Connecticut lacks jurisdiction under § 46b‑115k(a)(1). |
| Did Florida retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction despite the parties leaving Florida? | Connecticut/Parisi: exclusive jurisdiction may have ceased when parties left the state. | Florida retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because it expressly retained jurisdiction and there were pending motions. | Florida properly retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; Connecticut is precluded from modifying under § 46b‑115m. |
| Was an evidentiary hearing required in Connecticut to resolve home‑state facts? | Parisi: factual issues remain and require a hearing. | Niblett/Elgo: Florida’s judgment and the court’s retention during the phone conference are dispositive; no hearing needed. | No evidentiary hearing necessary; Florida’s findings and retention are determinative. |
| Does the statutory scheme permit a party to evade the original forum by moving states and filing elsewhere? | Majority suggests concern about perpetual jurisdiction if original forum controls. | Elgo: the act is meant to prevent forum shopping; a party may not evade original‑forum jurisdiction by moving. | The act favors deference to the original custody forum to avoid forum shopping; dismissal was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Iliana M., 134 Conn. App. 382 (Conn. App. 2012) (describing UCCJEA purposes: avoid interstate jurisdictional conflict and discourage forum shopping)
- In re Custody of A.C., 165 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2009) (characterizing the UCCJEA as a pact among states limiting modification jurisdiction)
- Kioukis v. Kioukis, 185 Conn. 249 (Conn. 1981) (UCCJA precedent; noted as distinct from UCCJEA analysis)
- Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523 (Conn. 2012) (statutory definitions control interpretation)
- State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2009) (read statutes together to harmonize related provisions)
- Cabrera v. Mercado, 230 Md. App. 37 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016) (holding original forum retained jurisdiction where a protective proceeding was filed before other state action)