Bowles v. Bowles

• Decision Date: 13 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 89A05-9905-CV-239.,89A05-9905-CV-239.
• Citation: 721 N.E.2d 1247
• Parties: Frank W. BOWLES, Jr., Appellant-Petitioner, v. Monica BOWLES, Appellee-Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

721 N.E.2d 1247

Frank W. BOWLES, Jr., Appellant-Petitioner, v. Monica BOWLES, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 89A05-9905-CV-239.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

December 13, 1999.

Robert A. Garelick, Jill E. Goldenberg, Cohen Garelick & Glazier, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellant.

Dan L. Clayton, Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellee.

OPINION

KIRSCH, J.

Frank W. Bowles, Jr. (Father) appeals the decision of the trial court declining to exercise continuing jurisdiction over the determination of the custody of the minor child of Father and Monica Bowles (Mother). He raises the following issue for review:

Whether the trial court erred in declining jurisdiction of this action pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law (UCCJL).

We reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Father and Mother were married in January 1994. They had a son, G.B., in September 1994. The family lived in Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana. In April 1996, Father filed a petition to dissolve the marriage (Indiana action) in the Wayne Circuit Court (Indiana court). Later, Father and Mother attempted a reconciliation and in August 1996, they moved to Lima, Ohio.

The reconciliation failed, and on December 24, 1996, Mother moved with G.B. to Cook County, Illinois without Father's knowledge. Two days later, Mother cross-petitioned for dissolution in the pending Indiana action. Over the next two years, Father and Mother participated in a number of hearings and a workshop in the Indiana action. In addition, Father, Mother, and G.B. participated in three custody evaluations by the court-appointed evaluator. On October 19, 1999, the trial court set the final hearing on the dissolution petitions for March 4, 1999. On January 25, 1999, the court-appointed evaluator filed her final custodial evaluation. In the court-appointed evaluator's first two custody evaluations, she recommended that Mother should be granted custody. In her third and final report, she changed her opinion and recommended that Father be granted custody of G.B.

On February 25, 1999, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the Indiana action, claiming that Indiana was an inconvenient forum under the UCCJL. On March 2, 1999, Mother filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in a Cook County, Illinois court. The Indiana court denied Mother's motion to dismiss and held a final hearing on the dissolution on March 4, 1999. On April 12, 1999, the Honorable Carole K. Bellows of the Cook County, Illinois court sent the Indiana court a letter advising it of Judge Bellows' belief that the Illinois court had jurisdiction of this matter and would proceed. On May 3, 1999, the Indiana court declared its dissolution decree final, but yielded jurisdiction on the custody matter to the Illinois court. Father now appeals.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Father contends that the trial court erred in declining to exercise continuing jurisdiction in this action. We review a trial court's UCCJL jurisdiction determination under an abuse of discretion standard. Ortman v. Ortman, 670 N.E.2d 1317, 1319 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied (1997). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Pryor v. Pryor, 709 N.E.2d 374, 376 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). The court also abuses its discretion when it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Id.

Under the UCCJL, an Indiana court has an affirmative duty to question its jurisdiction when it becomes aware of an interstate dimension in a child custody dispute. Ashburn v. Ashburn, 661 N.E.2d 39, 41 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied. When confronting an interstate custody dispute, the trial court must engage in a multi-step analysis to determine: 1) whether it has subject matter jurisdiction; 2) whether there is a custody proceeding pending in another state which would require the court to decline its jurisdiction; and 3) whether the trial court should exercise its jurisdiction because Indiana is the convenient forum. Largen v. Largen, 535 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind.Ct.App.1989).

In this case, the parties do not dispute that Indiana has jurisdiction. Rather, Father asserts that the trial court erred in the final step of the analysis, that is, in determining that it should decline jurisdiction because Indiana is not a convenient forum.

IC XX-XX-X-X provides the guidelines for determining whether Indiana is an inconvenient forum. It states:

"(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.

...

(c) In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others:

(1) if another state is or recently was the child's home state;

(2) if another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one (1) or more of the contestants;

(3) if substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state;

(4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and

(5) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in section 1 of this chapter."

We agree that the trial court erred in finding that Indiana is an inconvenient forum for the resolution of this case. The case has been pending before the Indiana court for three years. It is in G.B.'s best interest for the case to be resolved as quickly as possible. The Indiana court has already heard the evidence and stands ready to render a decision. No other court can claim this. Thus, Indiana is not an inconvenient forum. Further, the UCCJL states that it should be construed to...