Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; August 15, 2013; Arizona; State Appellate Court
The Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) contests the juvenile court's dismissal of a dependency petition, claiming lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The case involves Angie P. (Mother) and Devin P. (Father), who were reported for alleged abuse and neglect of their two children following their relocation to Arizona from Japan. After a safety plan was not followed by the parents, ADES removed the children and filed a dependency petition. During a temporary custody hearing, the juvenile court ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the alleged events occurred in Japan. ADES subsequently filed a special action petition, which was stayed pending resolution.
The court accepted special action jurisdiction, emphasizing that the jurisdictional issue regarding the UCCJEA is one of first impression with statewide significance. ADES argued the juvenile court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the appellate review of this decision will be conducted de novo, focusing on statutory interpretation.
Jurisdiction for initial child custody determinations under the UCCJEA requires specific conditions to be met. A court has jurisdiction if: (1) the state is the child's home state at the commencement of proceedings or was within six months prior, with a parent still residing in the state; (2) no other state has home state jurisdiction, and both the child and parents have a significant connection to the state beyond mere physical presence, along with substantial evidence concerning the child's circumstances; (3) all courts with jurisdiction have declined to exercise it in favor of the state in question; or (4) no other state has jurisdiction under the aforementioned criteria.
In this case, although the children are living in Arizona, they do not qualify as having Arizona as their home state, as they had not resided there for the six months preceding the dependency petition. Instead, Texas was their home state during their time in Japan due to military deployment rules. Arizona can still assert jurisdiction if it meets the requirements under A.R.S. 25-1031(A)(2), which necessitates a significant connection with the state and availability of substantial evidence regarding the child's situation.
The parents contest Arizona's jurisdiction, arguing the lack of significant connection because no social services were provided, and the children have minimal history in the state. However, the court disagrees, implying that sufficient grounds exist for Arizona to exercise jurisdiction despite the parents' claims.
Arizona has not defined "significant connection" under A.R.S. 25-1031(A)(2), but other jurisdictions, such as in Rennie v. Rosenthol, interpret it as requiring a meaningful connection to the state. The determination of a child's significant connection involves analyzing the nature and quality of their contacts with the state. In this case, the children have significant connections to Arizona due to their parents' residency linked to a military assignment, a paternal grandfather residing in Maricopa County who assists with their care, and an allegation of abuse that occurred in Arizona, which has been investigated by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES). This context establishes that the court can exercise jurisdiction and make custody determinations, and thus, the dependency petition should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The parents contended that the juvenile court improperly stated jurisdiction was lacking because many allegations of abuse occurred in Japan. However, the court recognized that one child reported abuse in Arizona, necessitating an investigation by ADES to protect the child’s best interests. Although the majority of allegations arose in Japan, this did not preclude the juvenile court's jurisdiction over dependency matters related to abuse or neglect in Arizona, as established by A.R.S. 8-202(B). Furthermore, the juvenile court retains jurisdiction even for allegations occurring outside Arizona, as ADES is authorized to investigate and act to protect children from abuse or neglect, regardless of the location of the alleged incidents.
Case law from various jurisdictions supports that a court can exercise subject matter jurisdiction over child abuse cases even if the abuse did not occur within the state. In **Matter of Westchester County Department of Social Services**, an infant abused in Italy was subjected to a jurisdictional challenge when her mother fled to New York. The New York appellate court upheld jurisdiction, emphasizing that the child’s presence in the state, combined with personal jurisdiction over the parents, established the court's authority to act given clear evidence of the child's substantial harm.
Similarly, the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed jurisdiction over a child abuse case involving allegations from Romania, asserting that any child found within the state could be protected regardless of where the abuse occurred, citing the state's parens patriae interest.
Applying these principles, the juvenile court was found to possess subject matter jurisdiction in a case where no abuse was alleged in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) had a statutory obligation to protect children, and with personal jurisdiction over the parents, the court was incorrect in dismissing the dependency petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Regarding attorneys' fees and sanctions requested by the parents, the court denied their request since relief was granted to ADES. Ultimately, the court accepted jurisdiction and vacated the order dismissing the dependency action, highlighting that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) supports jurisdictional consistency across states, ensuring that no other state held jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, related contempt proceedings were deemed moot.
