Harney v. Harney, ___ N.C. App. ___ (September 3, 2024)
Held:
Affirmed
- Facts: In June 2019, the child was born in New York where Mother resides. Maternal Grandfather lives in North Carolina and traveled to be with Mother when the child was born. Shortly after the child’s birth, Grandfather sought and obtained temporary custody of the child due to concerns with Mother’s home and mental health. A few days later, the New York court entered a stipulation agreement with consent of Mother and Grandfather that granted both parties joint custody; noted Grandfather lived in North Carolina and named Grandfather as the child’s physical custodian. The stipulation gave Mother supervised visitation rights and included provisions Mother had to address. The child lived in North Carolina with Grandfather since entry of the stipulation order. In June 2020, Grandfather filed for custody of the child in North Carolina. In July 2020, Mother filed petitions to modify and enforce the custody order in New York and motioned to dismiss Grandfather’s complaint in North Carolina for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, though admitting the child lived with Grandfather in North Carolina since June 2019. In October 2020, following a hearing conducted by the presiding New York judge and the North Carolina judge, at which both parties appeared in North Carolina, the New York court declined exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, naming North Carolina as the more appropriate forum, and directing the parties to appear and cooperate in further proceedings in North Carolina. In July 2021, the North Carolina court entered a temporary custody order and held custody hearings over several months. In 2022, the North Carolina court entered a permanent custody order granting Grandfather legal and physical custody. Mother appeals. This summary discusses the subject matter jurisdiction of the North Carolina court under the UCCJEA.
- An appellate court has a duty to address subject matter jurisdiction even if not raised by any party. The standard of review of whether a court possesses subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is de novo. Mother’s only argument relating to the North Carolina trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction is that the North Carolina court failed to rule on her motion to dismiss. Mother cited no supporting authorities and made no argument on the issue. The court of appeals noted its duty to address jurisdiction and addressed the issue on its own.
- Under the UCCJEA, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in G.S. 50A-204 [temporary emergency jurisdiction], a court of this State may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under G.S. 50A-201(a)(1) [home state jurisdiction] or G.S. 50A-201(a)(2) [significant connection jurisdiction] and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under G.S. 50A-202 or that a court of this State would be a more convenient forum under G.S. 50A-207.” Sl. Op. at 2, quoting G.S. 50A-203.
- North Carolina had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the custody order under the UCCJEA. The New York and North Carolina trial courts held a hearing on Mother’s motions filed in New York. The New York court entered an order declining to exercise exclusive continuing jurisdiction in favor of the more appropriate forum of North Carolina in compliance with G.S. 50A-207. Mother did not appeal the New York order, and the order is binding upon North Carolina courts. North Carolina was the child’s home state under G.S. 50A-201(a)(1) and the court had modification jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 50A-203.
Category:
UCCJEAStage:
Subject Matter JurisdictionTopic:
Modification Jurisdiction