In re Marriage of Madrone
No information provided (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court's subject-matter jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination is governed exclusively by the hierarchical statutory analysis of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The subjective intent of the parties to change their residence is not a permissible factor in this jurisdictional analysis.
Facts:
- Karah Madrone, Lorrena Madrone, and their four-year-old daughter, R.M., moved together from Oregon to Boulder, Colorado.
- Shortly after the move, Karah and Lorrena's relationship ended, and they separated.
- Initially, Lorrena had R.M. full-time and permitted Karah to have visits with the child.
- Subsequently, Lorrena cut off all contact between Karah and R.M.
- Lorrena then took R.M. from Colorado to New Mexico, and then to Oregon.
- Lorrena and R.M. had resided in Colorado for less than six months before they left the state.
- Karah Madrone remained in Colorado after the separation and Lorrena's departure.
Procedural Posture:
- Karah Madrone filed several motions in the Boulder County District Court (a state trial court) seeking allocation of parental responsibilities for R.M.
- The trial court declined to exercise emergency jurisdiction.
- The trial court ruled that Colorado was not R.M.'s home state because she had not resided there for six months.
- The trial court subsequently held that it did have jurisdiction to make initial child custody determinations based on the parties' 'intent to indefinitely change their residence to Colorado.'
- Lorrena Madrone (petitioner) sought review of the trial court's jurisdictional order in the Colorado Supreme Court (the state's highest court) through an original proceeding.
- The Colorado Supreme Court issued a Rule to Show Cause to review the trial court's assumption of jurisdiction.
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 a trial court have jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination based on the parties' intent to indefinitely reside in the state, rather than on the specific jurisdictional grounds outlined in the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rice
No. A court's jurisdiction over an initial child custody matter must be determined by the exclusive, statutory framework of the UCCJEA, not the parties' subjective intent to reside in the state. The UCCJEA provides the 'exclusive jurisdictional basis' for making child custody determinations. The trial court correctly determined that Colorado was not R.M.'s 'home state' because the child had not lived there for at least six consecutive months before the proceeding began. However, the court erred by then turning to the parties' intent to relocate as a basis for jurisdiction. The proper analysis required the court to proceed through the UCCJEA's hierarchical alternatives to home state jurisdiction, which include 'significant connection,' 'more appropriate forum,' and 'last resort' jurisdiction. Because the trial court failed to conduct this mandatory statutory analysis and instead applied an incorrect legal standard, its assumption of jurisdiction was improper.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict, formulaic application of the UCCJEA's jurisdictional rules in initial child custody proceedings. The court's holding clarifies that subjective factors, such as a parent's intent to reside in a state, are irrelevant to the jurisdictional inquiry. This decision promotes uniformity and predictability in interstate custody disputes by mandating that courts rigidly adhere to the statute's hierarchical framework, thereby discouraging forum shopping and preventing conflicting custody orders from different states.
Unlock the full brief for In re Marriage of Madrone