Steven D. v. Nicole J.
308 P.3d 875
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Steven and Nicole divorced in Alaska; Alaska superior court approved a 2004 settlement giving Steven primary custody in Tennessee and Nicole scheduled summer visitation in Alaska.
- Nicole remained an Alaska resident; the children lived with Steven in Tennessee for nearly a decade.
- In May 2012 Nicole filed in Alaska to enforce summer visitation after Steven allegedly refused to surrender the children; Tennessee entered an ex parte order asserting temporary emergency jurisdiction the next day.
- Alaska superior court held a hearing (June 2012), found Alaska retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because substantial evidence about the dispute (e.g., alleged drug use and home conditions) was in Alaska, and declined to transfer on inconvenient-forum grounds.
- The superior court conditioned enforcement on Nicole passing drug testing and ultimately denied 2012 summer visitation for delay in testing; Steven appealed only the jurisdiction and inconvenient-forum rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Steven) | Defendant's Argument (Nicole) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alaska retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Alaska lost jurisdiction because the children and father lived in Tennessee for a long time | Alaska retained jurisdiction because Nicole (a parent) and substantial evidence relevant to the dispute remain in Alaska | Alaska retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under AS 25.30.310 because Nicole lives in Alaska and substantial evidence about the child’s care remains in Alaska |
| Whether temporary Tennessee emergency jurisdiction divested Alaska of jurisdiction | Tennessee’s ex parte emergency order required Alaska to stay and defer | Tennessee’s emergency order was temporary; Alaska may proceed and should communicate with Tennessee but is not divested | Tennessee’s temporary emergency jurisdiction did not divest Alaska; any failure to communicate was not reversible error where no prejudice shown |
| Whether Alaska should have ceded jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum (AS 25.30.360) | Alaska was an inconvenient forum because child and most evidence were in Tennessee and judges failed to communicate | Alaska was not inconvenient because the critical evidence (mother’s home, alleged substance abuse, living conditions) was located in Alaska | Alaska did not abuse its discretion in denying the inconvenient-forum motion; the court reasonably focused on the key factor — location/nature of evidence |
| Scope of proper inquiry under UCCJEA when enforcing summer visitation | Alaska must compare both homes and lose jurisdiction if child absent long-term | For enforcement of visitation to a parent in Alaska, relevant evidence about the visiting parent’s home may justify Alaska jurisdiction even if child lives elsewhere | Court correctly limited inquiry to safety and conditions of mother’s Alaska home; substantial evidence in Alaska made exercise of jurisdiction appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Vigil, 59 P.3d 255 (Alaska 2002) (standard for reviewing UCCJEA jurisdiction questions)
- Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008) (abuse-of-discretion review for inconvenient-forum rulings)
- Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P.2d 14 (Alaska 1982) (trial court must articulate reasons when denying inconvenient-forum motions)
- Virgin v. Virgin, 990 P.2d 1040 (Alaska 1999) (court need only address pertinent/determinative inconvenient-forum factors)