In the Matter of Shelby C.V. v. Joshua W.K.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Interstate child custody jurisdiction and required inter-court communication under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
Family Court dismissed the mother's custody petition with prejudice, finding New York lacked jurisdiction due to an Ohio proceeding.
The dismissal with prejudice; the motion to dismiss was denied and the matter remanded.
Family Court did not comply with the UCCJEA (Domestic Relations Law, art 5-A [jurisdictional rules for interstate child custody, including required inter-court communication and recordkeeping]) when it failed to communicate with the Ohio court or make a record of any such communication as required by Domestic Relations Law §§ 76-c(4) [temporary emergency jurisdiction; directs communication with courts of other states if a proceeding exists] and 76-e(1) [simultaneous proceedings; requires inter-court communication], and § 75-i(4) [requires courts to make a record of inter-court communications and inform the parties]. It also failed to consider exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction despite serious domestic violence allegations, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 76-c(1) [temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect a child or a parent].
Background
The mother filed a custody petition in New York Family Court alleging serious domestic violence. The Family Court learned that a related custody proceeding was pending in Ohio and, without making any record of communication with the Ohio court, dismissed the New York petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Lower Court Decision
Dismissed the custody petition with prejudice on the ground that New York lacked jurisdiction in light of the pending Ohio proceeding; no record was made of any inter-court communication and the court did not address whether temporary emergency jurisdiction was warranted given the domestic violence allegations.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed, denied the motion to dismiss, and remanded. It held that the Family Court committed reversible error by failing to communicate with the Ohio court and to make a record of any such communication as required by the UCCJEA, and by failing to consider temporary emergency jurisdiction in light of the domestic violence allegations.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that compliance with the UCCJEA’s procedural safeguards—particularly inter-court communication and recordmaking—is mandatory and that failure to do so is not harmless error (see Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 610-611; Matter of Vashon H. v Bret I., 191 AD3d 1120). Courts must also consider temporary emergency jurisdiction where allegations of domestic violence are present (see Matter of Alger v Jacobs, 169 AD3d 1415; Matter of Santiago v Riley, 79 AD3d 1045).
When an out-of-state custody proceeding exists, New York courts must communicate with the other state’s court, place the communication on the record, inform the parties, and assess temporary emergency jurisdiction if domestic violence is alleged; failure to follow these UCCJEA requirements is reversible error.