Fuge v. Uiterwyk
Docket: No. 90-CA-0544
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 27, 1991; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Hendrik Uiterwyk appeals a judgment from October 12, 1989, which modified custody and visitation orders from a Florida court and barred both parties from pursuing related proceedings in Florida. Uiterwyk contends that the judgment is void due to the trial court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction under federal law, specifically arguing that the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. 1738A, grants Florida sole jurisdiction. However, the Fourth Circuit Court previously determined that Louisiana had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, allowing for a trial on the merits. The PKPA stipulates that a state court has jurisdiction if it meets certain criteria regarding the child's home state and the best interest of the child, none of which apply here since the children had resided in Louisiana since September 1986. Additionally, Uiterwyk claims the trial court erred by restricting his testimony and modifying the agreement without evidence of a change in circumstances. The court found that the change in the children’s residence constituted a significant change, justifying the modification of custody and visitation. Mr. Uiterwyk argues that the trial court improperly exercised its discretion by prohibiting him and his witnesses from testifying during the hearing. This sanction was imposed due to Mr. Uiterwyk's failure to appear for a scheduled deposition the day prior, a situation compounded by a history of difficulties between him and the court. Under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1473, courts have the authority to impose "just" sanctions, with the appropriateness of such measures being case-specific. Previous rulings have upheld the exclusion of testimony as a valid sanction for non-compliance. However, given that this case pertains to child custody and visitation, the appellate court emphasizes the paramount importance of the children's best interests, which necessitates considering the testimony of both parents and their witnesses. Consequently, the appellate court reverses the trial court's decision regarding custody and visitation, remanding the case for a comprehensive hearing that allows both parents to present their cases. The appellate court affirms part of the lower court's ruling but reverses and remands the custody aspect.