Weesner v. Johnson

Citations: 89 Ark. App. 203; 201 S.W.3d 432Docket: CA 04-784

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; January 19, 2005; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Sheryl Weesner appealed the trial court's denial of her motion to dismiss and the divorce decree concerning custody and visitation, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). John Johnson had filed for divorce in Arkansas, seeking custody of their minor child. Weesner contested jurisdiction, asserting that California was the child's home state and provided an affidavit detailing the child's residency history. During a hearing, Johnson claimed that they had been separated since 2001 and provided testimony about the child's living situation, indicating that they had moved frequently between California, Arizona, and Nevada. The trial court ultimately ruled that it had jurisdiction over the matter, leading to the issuance of the divorce decree on April 27, 2004. The appellate court agreed with Weesner, concluding that the trial court erred in asserting jurisdiction and reversed the decision.

The Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cox highlighted the UCCJEA's aim to avoid jurisdictional disputes that arose under the UCCJA. The court established that child-custody jurisdiction falls under subject-matter jurisdiction and confirmed that the UCCJEA serves as the sole method for determining the appropriate forum in child custody cases involving multiple jurisdictions. It noted that the question of a lower court's subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte, with dismissal being appropriate if jurisdiction is lacking.

According to section 9-19-201 of the UCCJEA, a court in Arkansas can assert jurisdiction for an initial child-custody determination if: 1) Arkansas is the child's home state, or was within six months prior to the proceedings; 2) no other state has jurisdiction, or the child's home state has declined jurisdiction in favor of Arkansas, provided there is a significant connection to Arkansas and substantial evidence regarding the child's welfare; 3) all courts with jurisdiction have declined in favor of Arkansas being the more appropriate forum; or 4) no other state has jurisdiction under the specified criteria. Additionally, physical presence is not a requirement for jurisdiction.

The term "home state" is defined as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the custody proceedings. For infants under six months, it refers to the state of residence since birth. In this case, evidence showed the child had never lived in Arkansas, thus disqualifying it as the home state and preventing jurisdiction under 9-19-201(a)(1). Jurisdiction under provision 9-19-201(a)(2) could only exist if there was a significant connection to Arkansas and substantial evidence concerning the child's welfare, which was not established.

Jurisdiction over the child custody case could only be established if the child and at least one parent had significant connections with Arkansas. The facts revealed that the child had no ties to Arkansas, as she had never lived there. While the father resided in Arkansas, previous case law, including *LeGuin v. Caswell* and *Fletcher v. Fletcher*, established that a parent's residence is insufficient to demonstrate a child's significant connection to the state. Arkansas law (Section 9-19-201(a)(3)) addresses situations where another state declines jurisdiction for convenience, which does not apply here. Additionally, under Section 9-19-201(a)(4), Arkansas can only retain jurisdiction if no other state has jurisdiction under the previous provisions. Testimony indicated that the child was born and primarily raised in California, living there for more than half her life, with minimal and temporary moves to other states. This evidence supports that California had significant connections to the child, thus prohibiting Arkansas from asserting jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's assumption of jurisdiction was deemed erroneous, and the child custody adjudication was reversed and dismissed. The determination of whether California will pursue jurisdiction is left to its discretion.