131 A.3d 717
R.I.2016Background
- McAndrew (defendant) and Hogan (plaintiff) are dual U.S.–Irish citizens; divorced in Rhode Island in 2008 by consent judgment containing a forum‑selection clause naming Rhode Island Family Court for future custody disputes.
- Hogan moved with the parties’ three children to Ireland in 2009; children lived there continuously (except summer visits) until 2014 when two older children were visiting McAndrew in Rhode Island.
- In July 2014 McAndrew filed emergency custody motions in Rhode Island alleging abuse by Hogan; Hogan sought dismissal on jurisdictional grounds (children resided in Ireland >5 years) and moved to vacate the ex parte order.
- The Family Court acknowledged it had exclusive, continuing UCCJEA jurisdiction but declined to exercise it on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Ireland the more appropriate forum; McAndrew appealed.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the Family Court’s decision, holding the hearing justice misapplied the UCCJEA by (1) ignoring material weight owed to the parties’ consent judgment/forum‑selection clause and (2) failing the statute’s two‑step analysis (identifying a more appropriate forum and separately finding Rhode Island an inconvenient forum).
- Case remanded for further proceedings; at interim proceedings one child’s custody was modified in Rhode Island and two children remained with McAndrew.
Issues
| Issue | Hogan's Argument | McAndrew's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Family Court properly declined jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (forum non conveniens) | Ireland is the more appropriate forum because children and most evidence and service providers are located there | The forum‑selection clause in the consent divorce judgment and related UCCJEA factors weigh heavily for Rhode Island retaining jurisdiction | Vacated: trial court abused discretion—failed to give material weight to consent judgment and misapplied UCCJEA two‑step test |
| Weight of parties’ forum‑selection clause in custody context | Clause is only one of eight UCCJEA factors; not dispositive | Clause is a final judgment by consent and was critical inducement for relocation; merits significant weight | Court must give substantial deference to a final judgment/forum‑selection clause when exercising UCCJEA analysis; here it was overlooked |
| Whether the trial court adequately evaluated the ability of Irish courts to hear the case expeditiously and procedures to present evidence | Irish proceedings (High Court action) indicated expeditious process; neutral on balance | Insufficient evidence was presented about Irish procedures, joint‑custody recognition, or child‑voice practices | Family Court relied on inadequate evidence re: Irish procedures; that factor was improperly weighed |
| Whether trial court made independent finding that Rhode Island is an inconvenient forum | Not argued to require additional explicit finding beyond weighing factors | UCCJEA requires two steps: (1) identify more appropriate forum, and (2) independently find current forum is inconvenient; Family Court failed step (2) | Court must make explicit inquiry that Rhode Island is significantly inconvenient before declining jurisdiction; Family Court did not do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 2008) (forum non conveniens two‑prong common‑law framework and abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- McCulloch v. McCulloch, 69 A.3d 810 (R.I. 2013) (sanctity of consent judgments)
- McEntee v. Davis, 861 A.2d 459 (R.I. 2004) (consent judgments not set aside absent fraud, mistake, or lack of consent)
- In re McBurney Law Servs., Inc., 798 A.2d 877 (R.I. 2002) (weight accorded stipulations)
- Sidell v. Sidell, 18 A.3d 499 (R.I. 2011) (forum‑selection clauses do not create subject‑matter jurisdiction but bind parties when jurisdiction exists)
- Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 927 (1st Cir. 1988) (abuse‑of‑discretion where material factors ignored or improperly weighed)
- Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (factors relevant to custody/change‑of‑placement evidence)
- Chiappone v. Chiappone, 984 A.2d 32 (R.I. 2009) (best‑interests standard in custody determinations)