Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appellant sought to modify a child custody decree initially established in 2014, which granted sole custody to the child's mother. The father argued that Iowa retained jurisdiction over the case based on a 2016 agreement, despite the mother and child residing outside Iowa since that year. The district court ruled, and the appellate court affirmed, that Iowa lacked jurisdiction under Iowa's Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, specifically section 598B.202. This statute mandates that a court loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction if the child and parents no longer maintain a significant connection with the state and if substantial evidence concerning the child's care is unavailable in Iowa. The court found that the child, having no ties to Iowa since 2016 such as school attendance or medical care, and the parties' inability to confer jurisdiction through agreement, supported the dismissal. Thus, the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal of the father's petition.
Legal Issues Addressed
Exclusive Continuing Jurisdiction under Iowa Code Section 598B.202subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied Iowa Code section 598B.202 to determine whether it retained jurisdiction, concluding that the lack of a significant connection and absence of substantial evidence in Iowa necessitated dismissal.
Reasoning: Specifically, jurisdiction ends if an Iowa court finds that the child lacks a significant connection to the state and that substantial evidence related to the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships is no longer available in Iowa.
Loss of Jurisdiction Due to Child's Minimal Connection to Statesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that since the child and mother had not resided in Iowa since 2016 and had minimal ties to the state, jurisdiction was properly dismissed.
Reasoning: In this case, C.M. and his mother have not resided in Iowa since 2016, and C.M. has minimal ties to the state, including no school attendance or medical care in Iowa during that time.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the argument that a 2016 agreement could confer jurisdiction, emphasizing that jurisdiction is determined by statutory or constitutional provisions rather than agreements between parties.
Reasoning: Jesse's first argument for retaining jurisdiction is based on the 2016 agreement; however, the court clarified that parties cannot establish subject matter jurisdiction through agreement, as it is determined by statutory or constitutional provisions.