Toland v. Futagi, 40 A.3d 1051

Toland challenged the circuit court's dismissal of his Complaint to Establish Custody under the UCCJEA after Erika resided in Japan with her maternal grandmother under a Japanese guardianship decree issued without Toland’s notice.
Maryland is not Erika's home state; Erika has lived exclusively in Japan since birth, making Japan the home state under §9.5-201(a)(1).
The Japanese decree awarded guardianship (not custody) to Futagi, and Toland remained free to pursue custody in Japan; the guardianship did not sever Toland’s custodial rights.
Toland argued §9.5-104(c) could apply, contending Japan's custody laws violate fundamental human rights, potentially permitting Maryland to assume jurisdiction.
Judge Salant found vacuum jurisdiction under §9.5-201(a)(4) was unavailable because Japan had not declined jurisdiction, and there was no basis to assume jurisdiction otherwise.
The court ultimately dismissed Toland’s custody action, ruling Japan's laws did not violate fundamental rights and that the UCCJEA did not permit Maryland to assume jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal violated Toland’s due process rights	Toland asserts due process rights were implicated by considering the Japanese decree.	Futagi contends there was no state action violating Toland’s due process since the proceeding did not enforce the foreign decree in Maryland.	No due process violation; state action not implicated.
Whether the circuit court properly declined jurisdiction under 9.5-201(a) and did not exercise vacuum jurisdiction	Toland argues vacuum jurisdiction should apply because Erika's presence in Japan resulted from unjustifiable conduct by others.	Futagi argues Maryland cannot invoke vacuum jurisdiction absent Japan’s declination; Japan remained the home state.	Proper application; vacuum jurisdiction not exercised.
Whether §9.5-104(c) allows Maryland to assume jurisdiction due to human-rights concerns with Japan's custody laws	Toland contends Japan's custody regime violates fundamental principles of human rights, triggering §9.5-104(c).	Futagi argues Japanese custody law does not violate fundamental principles; the exception does not apply.	Japan's laws did not violate fundamental principles; §9.5-104(c) not applicable.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest)
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (due process and fundamental rights discussion relevant to family decisions)
Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1923) (parental right to educate and raise children recognized as fundamental)
In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282 (2005) (Maryland recognizes parental rights as fundamental)
Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404 (2007) (presumption that biological parent should retain custody when possible)
Aleem v. Aleem, 404 Md. 404 (2008) (comity and human-rights considerations in cross-border family law)
In re Kaela C., 394 Md. 432 (2006) (UCCJEA framework and home state concepts in Maryland)
Garg v. Garg, 393 Md. 225 (2006) (threshold for domestic/foreign jurisdiction in custody disputes)