Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas, 10S01-0401-CV-11.
| Decision Date | 20 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 10S01-0401-CV-11.,10S01-0401-CV-11. |
| Citation | 803 N.E.2d 665 |
| Parties | GAMAS-CASTELLANOS, Erick David, appellant, v. GAMAS, Catherine Marie, appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Erick David Gamas-Castellanos ("Father") and Catherine Marie Gamas ("Mother") divorced in Texas. The Texas decree granted Mother permanent physical custody of the parties' two children and granted Father visitation. Mother thereafter moved with the children to Indiana. Later, Mother sent the younger child to stay with Father in the Netherlands. Father subsequently moved to Louisiana with the younger child.
Mother objected to the child's living in Louisiana with Father. She registered the Texas dissolution decree in the Clark Circuit Court in Indiana. Mother then traveled to Louisiana and brought the younger child back to Indiana, based on the registered Texas decree which gave her custody of both children.
On June 14, 2002, Father filed in Louisiana a motion that requested a determination of the custody of the children. Mother appeared in the Louisiana action and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Louisiana lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Louisiana's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ("UCCJA"), like Indiana's, is similar to the uniform act. On October 28, 2002, the Louisiana trial court entered an order finding that under its UCCJA law, Louisiana was the home state of the younger child and therefore had jurisdiction to decide custody issues concerning that child. The court ordered the return of the younger child to Father's physical custody and placement of the permanent custody issue on its docket. However, the Louisiana court found that under the UCCJA, it lacked jurisdiction to decide custody issues regarding the older child.
An appeal ensued. In an unpublished disposition, the Louisiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's conclusion that Louisiana courts have jurisdiction over the custody of the younger child. Gamas v. Gamas, Cause No. 2002-CW-2651 (La.Ct.App., Jan. 23, 2003).
In the meantime, on July 9, 2002, Mother had filed a motion to modify visitation in the Clark Circuit Court in Indiana. Father responded with motions asserting, in part, that a Louisiana court had already ruled that it had jurisdiction to decide custody of the younger child, had directed return of the child to Father, and that Indiana courts were precluded from asserting jurisdiction over the custody of that child.
In orders issued February 10 and February 14, 2003, the Clark Circuit Court concluded that, contrary to the determination of the Louisiana courts, Indiana was the home state of both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re L.S.
...courts found Florida lacked subject matter jurisdiction because both parties were Massachusetts residents. See also Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas, 803 N.E.2d 665, 666 (Ind.2004) (custody decree entitled to full faith and credit "even if Louisiana erred in determining which state was the home s......
-
Gardner v. Pierce, 10A01-0504-CV-145.
...where that court's conclusion was erroneous as a matter of law. N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., 685 N.E.2d at 686; Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas, 803 N.E.2d 665, 666 (Ind.2004) (recognizing this principle in the context of child custody litigation); Bergman v. Zempel, 807 N.E.2d 146, 155 (Ind.......
-
Cox v. Cantrell, 20A03-0701-CV-33.
...UCCJL. Bergman v. Zempel, 807 N.E.2d 146, 150 (Ind.Ct. App.2004) (quoting Indiana Code 31-17-3-6(a)); see also Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas, 803 N.E.2d 665, 666 (Ind.2004) (when Louisiana exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJL, the Indiana court should not have exerci......
-
Bergman v. Zempel
...conformity with Indiana's version of the UCCJA, then the trial court should have dismissed Father's petition. See Gamas-Castellanos v. Gamas, 803 N.E.2d 665, 666 (Ind.2004) (when Louisiana exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJA, the Indiana court should not have exe......