Ruff v. Knickerbocker
275 P.3d 1175
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- Montana district court issued an interim parenting plan in 2002 giving Ruff custody unless she moved out of Shelby; if she moved, Ruff would have primary custody with Knickerbocker visiting.
- Ruff and Kayleigh moved to Spokane, Washington in 2003; Kayleigh lived in Washington 2003–2006, Montana 2006–2007, and with Ruff in Spokane since 2007; Knickerbocker remained in Montana.
- Ruff petitioned in Spokane County Superior Court in July 2008 for a parenting plan, residential schedule, and child support; Knickerbocker sought custody modification the same day; courts consolidated and adopted emergency jurisdiction to keep Kayleigh's residence stable pending hearings.
- While Washington proceedings continued, the Montana case was dismissed in January 2009 after the parties agreed Washington had jurisdiction for final orders.
- On October 27, 2009, Spokane County Superior Court entered a parenting plan and residential schedule granting Ruff primary custody with Knickerbocker having regular visits; Knickerbocker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington had subject matter jurisdiction under UCCJEA to enter the 2009 orders | Knickerbocker: Montana was Kayleigh's home state; Washington lacked subject matter jurisdiction. | Ruff: Washington could exercise jurisdiction under UCCJEA despite not being home state. | Washington lacked subject matter jurisdiction; UCCJEA's procedural requirements are jurisdictional and cannot be waived. |
| Whether emergency jurisdiction was properly invoked and could transition to permanent orders | Knickerbocker: no emergency or proper emergency procedures. | Ruff: there was an emergency due to Knickerbocker's attempted removal; emergency jurisdiction applied. | Emergency jurisdiction did not authorize permanent orders; requirements of RCW 26.27.231(3)-(4) were not satisfied and no proper transition occurred. |
| Whether Montana’s declination/ dismissal cured jurisdictional issues or was effectively followed | Knickerbocker: Montana declined in Washington's favor, signaling compliance. | Ruff: declination did not follow UCCJEA procedures; substantial compliance is not enough. | Declination did not substitute for proper UCCJEA procedure; orders voidable and improperly entered. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Custody of A.C., 200 P.3d 689 (2009) (UCCJEA limits subject matter jurisdiction and aims to prevent conflicting interstate orders)
- In re Marriage of Kastanas, 896 P.2d 726 (1995) (subject matter jurisdiction and interstate custody rules applied on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Susan C., 60 P.3d 644 (2002) (interpretation of UCCJEA procedures and jurisdictional limits)
- In re C.T., 101 Cal. App. 4th 101 (2002) (California view on temporary emergency jurisdiction and proper limits)