In Re L.S.
257 P.3d 201 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA), a state is not required to give full faith and credit to another state's child custody determination if the rendering state did not exercise jurisdiction in conformity with the PKPA, which requires jurisdiction under both its own law and the PKPA's hierarchical standards, primarily home state jurisdiction.
Facts:
- The child was born in 2001 and resided in Colorado with her mother, Tatanjia Willyard Spotanski McNamara, and father, Stacy Joe Spotanski.
- The parents separated in January 2004, and the father moved to Nebraska.
- In May 2004, the parents signed a written agreement stating that all custody matters would be under Colorado's jurisdiction and the child would continue to live with the mother in Colorado.
- In the summer of 2004, the father took the child to Nebraska for an agreed-upon visit.
- At the conclusion of the visit, the father refused to return the child to her mother in Colorado.
- When the father filed for custody in Nebraska in November 2004, the child had been living in Nebraska for just over five months, which is less than the six months required to establish home state status.
Procedural Posture:
- The father, Stacy Joe Spotanski, filed an action for dissolution and custody in the district court for Howard County, Nebraska in November 2004.
- The mother, Tatanjia Willyard Spotanski McNamara, subsequently filed a dissolution action in the district court for Adams County, Colorado.
- The Adams County, Colorado district court (trial court) dismissed the mother's action, stating in a minute order that Nebraska had jurisdiction.
- The Nebraska district court (trial court) awarded temporary custody to the mother, but later issued a final decree in September 2006 awarding permanent custody to the father.
- The mother's appeals of the Nebraska custody determination to the Nebraska Court of Appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds.
- The mother filed a new custody proceeding in the district court for La Plata County, Colorado in October 2006.
- The La Plata County district court (trial court) found that Colorado was the child's home state, refused to enforce the Nebraska decree, and awarded custody to the mother.
- The father appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that although Nebraska lacked jurisdiction, its order was entitled to full faith and credit because the jurisdictional issue was litigated there.
- The mother appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado (this court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA) require a state to give full faith and credit to a child custody determination made by another state that lacked jurisdiction because it was not the child's home state and the home state had not properly declined jurisdiction?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
No. The Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act (PKPA) does not require Colorado to give full faith and credit to the Nebraska custody determination because Nebraska failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the PKPA's requirements. For a custody determination to be entitled to full faith and credit, it must be made 'consistently with the provisions' of the PKPA. This requires that the rendering state's court has jurisdiction under its own law and meets one of the PKPA's jurisdictional conditions. The PKPA prioritizes 'home state' jurisdiction, defined as the state where the child lived for six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding. Here, Colorado was the child's home state, not Nebraska. Nebraska could only assume jurisdiction if Colorado, as the home state, declined it on specific grounds, such as being an inconvenient forum. The Colorado trial court's initial cursory dismissal of the mother's action did not constitute a proper declination of jurisdiction as required by the statute. Therefore, Nebraska's exercise of jurisdiction was improper, and its custody order is not entitled to enforcement in Colorado.
Dissenting - Justice Coats
Yes. Colorado should enforce the Nebraska custody determination because principles of finality and res judicata require deference to a sister state's judgment once the issue of jurisdiction has been fully and fairly litigated. The mother contested jurisdiction in the Nebraska courts and lost; that determination should be final. The majority's approach of allowing a collateral attack on Nebraska's jurisdictional finding undermines the very purpose of the UCCJEA and PKPA, which is to prevent jurisdictional stalemates and conflicting state orders. By re-litigating the correctness of Nebraska's application of the UCCJEA, the majority perpetuates the interstate custody battles the uniform acts were designed to end. A jurisdictional determination made by another state under the provisions of the UCCJEA must be accepted without challenging the correctness of that determination.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict supremacy of the PKPA's jurisdictional hierarchy in interstate child custody disputes. It establishes that a second state has the authority to, and must, conduct its own analysis of whether the first state's exercise of jurisdiction was consistent with the PKPA before granting full faith and credit. This ruling limits the application of res judicata (finality of judgment) in this context, prioritizing strict adherence to the 'home state' rule over deference to a sister state's jurisdictional findings. The potential impact is an increased likelihood of collateral attacks on custody orders, as states are now explicitly permitted to second-guess the jurisdictional basis of another state's decree, ensuring that the PKPA's goal of preventing forum shopping is rigorously enforced.
Unlock the full brief for In Re L.S.