OPINION
Frаnk W. Bowles, Jr. (Father) appeals the decision of the trial court declining to exercise continuing jurisdiction over the determination of the custody of the minor child of Father аnd Monica Bowles (Mother). He raises the following issue for review:
Whether the trial court erred in declining jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law (UCCJL). We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Father and Mother were married in January 1994. They had a son, G .B., in September 1994. The family lived in Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana. In April 1996, Father filed a petition to dissolve the marriage (Indiana action) in thе Wayne Circuit Court (Indiana court). Later, Father and Mother attempted a reconciliation and in August 1996, they moved to Lima, Ohio.
The reconciliation failed, and on December 24, 1996, Mother moved with G.B. to Cook County, Illinois without Father’s knowledge. Two days later, Mother cross-petitioned for dissolution in the pending Indiana action. Over the next two years, Father and Mother participated in a number of hearings and a workshop in the Indiana action. In addition, Father, Mother, and G.B. participated in three custody evaluations by the court-appointed evaluator. On October 19, 1999, the trial court set the final hearing on the dissolution petitions for March 4, 1999. On January 25, 1999, the court-appointed evaluator filed her final custodial evaluation. In the court-appointed evaluator’s first two custody evaluations, she recommended that Mother should be granted custody. In her third and final report, she changed her opinion and recommended that Father be granted custody of G.B.
On February 25, 1999, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the Indiana action, claiming that Indiana was an inconvenient forum under the UCCJL. On March 2, 1999, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a Cook County, Illinois court. The Indiana court denied Mother’s
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Father contends that the trial court erred in declining to exercise continuing jurisdiction in this action. We review a trial court’s UCCJL jurisdiction determination under an abuse of discretion standаrd.
Ortman v. Ortman,
Under the UCCJL, an Indiana court has an affirmative duty to question its jurisdiction when it becomes aware of an interstate dimension in a child custody dispute.
Ashbum v. Ashbum,
In this case, the parties do not dispute that Indiana has jurisdiction. Rather, Father asserts that the trial court erred in the final step of the analysis, that is, in determining that it should decline jurisdiction because Indiana is not a convenient forum.
IC 31-17-3-7 provides the guidelines for determining whether Indiana is an inconvenient forum. It states:
“(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
(c) In dеtermining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others:
(1) if another state is or recently was the child’s home state;
(2) if another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one (1) or mоre of the contestants;
(3) if substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state;
(4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and
(5) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in section 1 of this chapter.”
We agree that the trial court erred in finding that Indiana is an inconvenient forum for the resolution of this сase. The case has been pending before the Indiana court for three years. It is in G.B.’s best interest for the case to be resolved as quickly as possible. The Indiana cоurt has already heard the evidence and stands ready to render a decision. No other court can claim this.
Further, there is no state with a closer connection to this controversy than Indiana. Although the parties now all live out of state, the Indiana court has already invested years of resources in resolving this matter. Further, a court-appointed evaluator has prepared three separate evaluations after interviewing and observing the parties. For the final evaluation, Mother even brought,her other children, G.B.’s half-siblings, who live in her home so the evaluаtor could observe their relationships with G.B. This consideration also weighs in favor of not finding Indiana an inconvenient forum.
Moreover, the parties have not agreed to havе the custody issue determined by the Illinois court. Father objects to allowing the Illinois court determine the matter, so this statutory consideration weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction in Indiana.
Mother argues that Illinois is the convenient forum to exercise jurisdiction in this case because G.B. has lived there for the past two years and evidence about his care cаn be found there. Mother’s argument fails because this case has progressed beyond the stage of the proceedings at which such a consideration is relevant. Indiana сounsel for both Mother and Father have already gathered and presented the evidence about G.B.’s custody and care to the Indiana court, which has heard such evidеnce and is ready to render a decision. This consideration weighs in favor of Indiana as a convenient forum.
Mother contends that Illinois is the convenient forum because she and G.B. live in Illinois. However, Mother engaged in the Indiana action for two years after moving to Illinois without complaining that Indiana was an inconvenient forum. Moreover, Father lives in Ohio. Illinois is not a convenient forum for him. Further, the home state of the child is only one of a number of statutory considerations in the inconvenient forum analysis, all of which factor intо the larger issue of what is in the best interests of the child.
In this case, Mother seemed prepared to allow the Indiana court to proceed until she received the final, unfavorable custody evaluation. One month later, and more than two years after she counter-petitioned in Indiana, she filed her petition for divorce in Illinois. Mother’s Illinois filing came on the eve of the Indiana trial, at which she appeared and presented evidence seven days later. The timing and sequence of events in this case gives the appearance of an attempt to manipulate the UCCJL to gain a favorable result. We cannot allow such manipulation to be rewarded. The two primary purрoses of the UCCJL are to discourage forum shopping and to protect the best interests of the child,
Clark,
Reversed.