Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 6, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
A putative father appealed the dismissal of his paternity petition, arguing that the trial court incorrectly determined that Alabama had jurisdiction and was the proper venue. The original custody arrangement began with a 1996 Broward County injunction that granted temporary custody of the child to the mother while they both resided in Florida. In 1999, the mother moved to Alabama with the child. During a visit to Florida, the father filed a paternity petition and an emergency custody petition, which prompted the mother to seek a child pick-up order in Broward County. The Broward court asserted jurisdiction based on the child's birth in Florida, but the mother sought to transfer the case to Broward, claiming it had prior jurisdiction.
The Palm Beach court deferred its ruling pending Broward’s venue decision, ultimately ordering that future matters be handled in Palm Beach. A guardian ad litem recommended that the father be the primary residential parent, citing the mother’s unstable living situation and the impracticality of visitation if she relocated to Alabama. The mother, however, filed for custody in Alabama and moved to dismiss the Palm Beach case, arguing that Alabama was now the child's home state and that Florida no longer had jurisdiction. She also filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, asserting the need for Alabama witnesses and the location of the child's records there. The father contended that the mother had submitted to the Palm Beach court's jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings.
The Palm Beach court issued a case management order recognizing conflicting views on jurisdiction between Florida and Alabama. It instructed the mother to file a motion to transfer venue based on her forum non conveniens argument and notified the Alabama court of the jurisdictional dispute. On January 14, 2004, the court dismissed the case, contingent upon the mother submitting verification of her motion within ten days and consulting with the Alabama judge. The mother complied with the verification on January 20, 2004. The father subsequently filed a motion for rehearing on January 26, 2004, contending the order lacked necessary factual findings and was ambiguous regarding its conditions. The successor judge denied the motion on February 5, 2004.
The ruling on forum non conveniens is discretionary; however, a dismissal without evidentiary support constitutes an abuse of discretion. In this instance, the trial court relied solely on the mother’s motion and the conversation with the Alabama judge, failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing or allow the father to present evidence. According to precedent, if a court’s jurisdictional decision is influenced by discussions with a judge from another state, both parties must be present, and the court must provide specific factual findings to justify its conclusion. The trial court did not adhere to this process, as there was no record of the parties being present during the conversation. Consequently, the lack of factual support in the record necessitated a reversal of the decision, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, instructing that any subsequent transfer order must include specific factual findings. Judges Klein and Gross concurred with this decision. The putative father is consistently referred to as the father in the opinion.
