Narrative Opinion Summary
Jurisdiction is determined to be concurrent in both Ohio and Florida, resulting in the reversal of the trial court's order that claimed exclusive jurisdiction. The ruling cites relevant case law, including Newcomb v. Newcomb and Hickey v. Baxter, and references Florida Statutes 61.1308 and 61.1316. Future motions should be evaluated according to the forum non conveniens provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Forum Non Conveniens under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Future motions in the case should be assessed based on the forum non conveniens provisions as outlined in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
Reasoning: Future motions should be evaluated according to the forum non conveniens provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
Concurrent Jurisdiction in Child Custody Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that both Ohio and Florida have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter, overturning the trial court's previous assertion of exclusive jurisdiction.
Reasoning: Jurisdiction is determined to be concurrent in both Ohio and Florida, resulting in the reversal of the trial court's order that claimed exclusive jurisdiction.
Reversal and Remand for Further Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate decision reverses the trial court's ruling and remands the case for additional proceedings in light of the jurisdictional findings.
Reasoning: The decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.