Matter of Erlin J. Cruz v. Elsa Mancia Cruz
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Child custody jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act].
Without a hearing, the Family Court held New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was not the children's home state when the father filed his custody petition.
The orders dismissing the father's custody petition were reversed; the jurisdictional orders were vacated; the petition was reinstated and remitted for a hearing.
There were disputed issues of fact as to when the children began residing in New York, which required a hearing before determining home-state jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(a) [jurisdiction for an initial custody determination if New York is the child's home state on filing or was the home state within six months and a parent remains in New York] and § 75-a(7) [defines 'home state' as where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding].
Background
The father filed a Family Court Act article 6 custody petition on December 27, 2022, alleging the children had lived in Amityville, New York since June 12, 2022. The mother moved to dismiss in September 2023 under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Domestic Relations Law art 5-A) [Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act], asserting New York was not the children's home state because they did not start residing in New York until July 8, 2022. The Family Court granted dismissal without a hearing, finding New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Lower Court Decision
By an order dated December 20, 2023, and an amended order dated December 19, 2023, the Family Court concluded New York was not the children's home state at the time of filing and thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Two dismissal orders dated December 20 and December 27, 2023 followed, dismissing the father's custody petition.
Appellate Division Reversal
The appeals from the December 20, 2023 order and the amended December 19, 2023 order were dismissed as nonappealable as of right. The two dismissal orders dated December 20 and December 27, 2023 were reversed; the jurisdictional orders were vacated; the petition was reinstated; and the matter was remitted for a hearing on subject matter jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(a) [jurisdiction for an initial custody determination if New York is the child's home state on filing or was the home state within six months and a parent remains in New York] and § 75-a(7) [defines 'home state' as where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding], followed by further proceedings on the merits if warranted.
Legal Significance
When the parties dispute the date a child began residing in New York, a Family Court may not dismiss a custody petition for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA without first holding an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute governing home-state status under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(a) [jurisdiction for an initial custody determination if New York is the child's home state on filing or was the home state within six months and a parent remains in New York] and § 75-a(7) [defines 'home state' as where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding].
Disputed facts about a child’s residence relevant to UCCJEA home-state jurisdiction require a hearing; dismissing a custody petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without one is error.