No, Connecticut had no power to change the Florida order. A federal law, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), is the top rule in these situations and overrules state laws. This law is like a referee that prevents states from fighting over who is in charge of a custody case. It says the first state to make a valid custody decision (Florida) keeps control as long as the child or one parent still lives there. For another state (Connecticut) to take over, Florida's court has to either lose its power under its own state laws or willingly give it up. Since the mom still lives in Florida and the Florida court never gave up control, Florida is still in charge. Connecticut overstepped its authority.

No, the Connecticut court can't change the Florida decision. This is because there's a special rule that says the state that made the first decision about a child (in this case, Florida) gets to keep making decisions as long as one of the parents still lives there. The mom still lives in Florida, and Florida hasn't said it's okay for another state to make decisions. This rule is meant to stop courts in different states from arguing about who gets to decide. It's like when you're playing a game - you follow the rules of the person who started the game. In this case, Florida started the game, so we have to follow Florida's rules. That's why we're telling the Connecticut court that it made a mistake and needs to let Florida make the decisions about this child.

No. A state does not have jurisdiction to modify another state's custody order when the original state retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the PKPA. The federal PKPA preempts conflicting state laws, such as Connecticut's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), under the Supremacy Clause. The PKPA grants the state that issued the initial valid custody order (the 'home state') exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify that order, so long as a contestant or the child still resides in that state and that state has not declined jurisdiction. A second state may only modify an order if it has jurisdiction AND the original state has either lost or declined jurisdiction. To determine if the original state still has jurisdiction, the court must look to the laws of that original state. Here, Florida law provides that it maintains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction as long as a contestant (Somers) resides there, unless a Florida court determines otherwise. Because Somers still resides in Florida and the Florida court did not relinquish its jurisdiction, Florida retained exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the Connecticut court was without authority to modify the Florida custody order.

No. The Connecticut court does not have jurisdiction to modify the Florida custody order. I reach this conclusion because the PKPA requires deference to the original state's continuing jurisdiction, provided the original state's laws support such jurisdiction. In this case, Florida law asserts continuing jurisdiction as long as one parent resides there and substantial connections to the state exist. Because Somers continues to reside in Florida, and Florida has not relinquished its jurisdiction, the PKPA mandates that Connecticut defer to Florida's continuing jurisdiction. The PKPA's purpose is to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict in child custody matters, promoting cooperation between state courts. It imposes a federal duty on states to give full faith and credit to custody decrees of other states under enumerated standards. The PKPA preserves to the state that initially enters a valid child custody determination the sole prerogative to modify that determination, as long as any modification would be valid under its own law and either the child or a contestant continues to live in the state. Here, Florida initially exercised jurisdiction in conformity with the PKPA, Somers continues to reside in Florida, and Florida law provides for exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until a Florida court determines otherwise. Therefore, the Connecticut court's decision to modify the Florida custody order is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Scott v. Somers

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot