Laskosky v. Laskosky

Decision Date18 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 56922,56922
Citation504 So.2d 726
PartiesTracy Anne LASKOSKY v. James Allan LASKOSKY.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Charles J. Mikhail, James C. Mingee, Krogstad, Johnson, Mingee & Wood, Jackson, for appellant.

Ben J. Piazza, Jr., Keyes, Moss, Piazza & Woods, Jackson, for appellee.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and GRIFFIN, JJ.

HAWKINS, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

The chancery court of Yazoo County enforced a Canadian court order granting James Allan Laskosky, a Canadian citizen, temporary custody of his child pending the outcome of his divorce proceeding in Canada. The child's mother, Tracy Anne Laskosky, a Mississippian, appealed that decision and asserted that the chancellor should have accepted jurisdiction over the custody dispute. Finding that the chancellor correctly declined to accept jurisdiction over Canada's, we affirm.

FACTS

James Allan Laskosky (Allan), a Canadian citizen, married Tracy Anne Laskosky (Tracy Anne), a Mississippian, in Alberta, Canada, on March 1, 1983. Jeffrey Sam Laskosky was born of their marital union.

On July 16, 1984, the couple separated after which they shared the custody of their child. In the fall of 1984, the couple began having disagreements over the custody of the boy.

On November 20, 1984, Tracy Anne filed her petition for divorce in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada.

In December, 1984, while Allan had custody of their son, Tracy Anne informed Allan she wanted to go to Yazoo City, MS, over the Christmas holidays to visit her parents. Before leaving Canada, she signed an agreement in which she agreed to return with the child to Canada after Christmas. Despite her promise, Tracy Anne refused to return to Canada. In January, 1985, Allan called Tracy Anne in Mississippi and she told him that she planned to return to Alberta on January 14, 1985. Later Tracy Anne's lawyer, Charles Mikhail, called Allan and told him Tracy Anne would return on January 28, 1985. Allan spoke to his Canadian lawyer, who advised him to do nothing until after January 28. When Tracy Anne failed to return on January 28, Allan called Yazoo City, and spoke to Linda Beeson, Tracy Anne's mother. She told him that Tracy Anne intended to stay in Yazoo City with the child.

On March 27, 1985, Tracy Anne entered a motion to dismiss her divorce in the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta, Canada. The Canadian court granted this motion. In Mississippi, on April 18, 1985, Tracy Anne filed a petition for general guardianship and confirmation of custody for her child in the chancery court of Yazoo County, Mississippi.

Allan did not remain idle. On April 12, 1985, he asked the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta to set aside its earlier dismissal of Tracy Anne's petition for divorce. After hearing arguments from counsel representing both parties, the Canadian court granted Allan's motion and ordered Tracy Anne to return to Canada with her child. On May 6, 1985, Allan's Mississippi lawyer petitioned the chancery court of Yazoo County to enforce the Canadian order. After hearing argument from counsel for both parties, the chancellor found the following:

The parties are still husband and wife and remain so until some court of competent jurisdiction makes a determination upon a trial of the issues as has been set by the court in Canada.

All proceedings that this Court has examined from the Canadian Court filed has shown that both parties were and have been throughout, the Canadian proceedings represented by counsel.

The petitioner in the Canadian court chose her forum and is in court in Canada.

This Court finds pursuant to Sec. 93-23-11(1) Miss.Code Ann. (1972) "... a court of this state shall not exercise jurisdiction under this chapter if at the time of filing the petition, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter ..."

This Court looked at the order entered in the Canadian court dated April 19, 1985, ... which ordered Tracy Anne Laskosky to return the child of marriage, Jeffrey Sam, to the Province of Alberta; that the matter be set down for trial of the issues; and that ..., James Allan Laskosky, shall receive liberal and generous access to said infant child.

This Court is of the opinion that the order dated April 19, 1985, by the Queen's Bench of Alberta ... is a valid temporary order ... Pursuant to Sec. 93-23-45 Miss.Code Ann. (1972) which gives international application to this chapter and that the respondent is ordered to abide by said orders of the Canadian court.

Despite Allan's promise to pay for Tracy Anne's and the child's airfare to and their living expenses in Canada, Tracy Anne failed to appear in her divorce proceeding on June 21, 1985. Instead, her Canadian counsel appeared and moved to withdraw. The Canadian court allowed her solicitor to withdraw and granted Allan interim custody of the child. On June 25, 1985, Allan again appeared in the chancery court of Yazoo County and asked the chancellor to hold Tracy Anne in contempt and enforce the Canadian court order. On July 3, 1985, the chancellor sustained Allan's motion to enforce the Canadian court order and directed Tracy Anne to deliver the child to the Yazoo City Police Department on July 4, 1985. Tracy Anne delivered the child to Allan who now holds custody of the boy in Canada. Tracy Anne comes to us asserting that the chancellor should not have honored the Canadian court order.

LAW

Tracy Anne argues technical arguments in an attempt to convince us that the chancellor should not have honored the Canadian decree. Our primary concern, however, focuses on the child's welfare, not on the games played by a parent to avoid another foreign nation's jurisdiction. Owens, by and through Mosley v. Huffman, 481 So.2d 231, 244 (Miss.1985).

Enforcement of foreign nation judgments in our courts is governed by the principle of comity. Restatement, 2nd, Conflicts of Laws, Sec. 98 (1986 Rev.). The principle of comity is similar to full faith and credit except that it is not governed by Federal statutes and that its application rests in the discretion of the trial judge. Kountouris v. Varvaris, 476 So.2d 599, 607 (Miss.1985); MacLeod v. MacLeod, 448 So.2d 361, 362 (Ala.Civ.Ct.App.1983); Cox v. Cox, 234 Miss. 885, 892, 108 So.2d 422 (1959).

Prior to the adoption of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act (UCCJA), no state was bound to honor a custody decree rendered in another state. Before we recognized a foreign decree, we compared the foreign jurisdiction's laws to Mississippi's laws. If the other jurisdiction's laws were substantially the same as ours, we would honor the foreign custody decree. Then, as now, we declined to honor a foreign decree when its enforcement conflicted with the best interests of the child. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-23-45 (Supp.1985); Thompson v. Foster, 244 So.2d 395 (Miss.1971); Seaney v. Seaney, 218 So.2d 5 (Miss.1969); Mixon v. Bullard, 217 So.2d 28 (Miss.1968); Cox v. Cox, 234 Miss. 885, 108 So.2d 422 (1959); Cox v. Cox, 233 Miss. 747, 102 So.2d 799 (Miss.1959).

Recognizing the uncertainty which courts in different jurisdictions acted in custody disputes, states, including Mississippi, adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act. The Act is designed to protect the welfare of children taken from one state to another. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act, Prefatory Note (1968).

The UCCJA permits courts to decline jurisdiction when a parent brings the child to Mississippi in an attempt to avoid another state's custody decree. The Act envisioned the same problems arising out of custody disputes in courts of foreign nations as it did in courts of different states. We are not free to disregard the custody decrees of a foreign country's court simply because they are non-UCCJA decrees. Our courts may honor a foreign nation's custody decree where the foreign court exercised jurisdiction substantially in conformity with our constitutional standards and the foreign nation's ruling does not offend our positive laws. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-23-45 (Supp.1985); Boardman v. United Services Auto Ass'n., 470 So.2d 1024, 1038 (Miss.1985); Mitchell v. Craft, 211 So.2d 509, 513-516 (Miss.1968); Al-Fasi v. Al-Fasi, 433 So.2d 664 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 271 N.W.2d 546 (N.D.1978); Miller v. Miller, 69 Cal.App.3d 191, 138 Cal.Rptr. 123 (1977). Our courts must decline to honor foreign nation custody decrees when they contravene the best interest of the child. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 93-23-5 (Supp.1985).

Commissioners' Note

Not all the provisions of the Act lend themselves to direct application in international custody disputes; but the basic policies of avoiding jurisdictional conflict and multiple litigation are as strong if not stronger when children are moved back and forth from one country to another by feuding relatives....

* * *

* * *

[C]ustody decrees rendered in other nations by appropriate authorities (which may be judicial or administrative tribunals) are recognized and enforced in this country. The only prerequisite is that reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard was given to the persons affected.

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act, Sec. 23 (Comment) (1968).

In her brief Tracy Anne argues technical jurisdictional arguments, and asks us to ignore the Canadian decree. We must find, however, that Canada had jurisdiction to resolve the custody dispute.

By filing a pleading in Canada, Tracy Anne submitted herself to the Canadian court's jurisdiction. Brown v. Brown, 493 So.2d 961, 963 (Miss.1986). "Jurisdiction once acquired is not defeated by subsequent events even though they are such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance." Bynum v. State, 222 Miss. 632, 637, 76 So.2d 821, 823 (1955), cited in Williams v. State, 459 So.2d 777, 779 (Miss.1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Derr v. Swarek
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 9, 2014
    ...the Mississippi Supreme Court receives guidance from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 98. See Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1987). The Restatement provides that a foreign judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction will be enforced if there has been......
  • In re Adoption of DNT
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 24, 2003
    ...presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to determine his custody. ¶ 22. In Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726 (Miss.1987), this Court declined jurisdiction under the UCCJA over a custody dispute involving a child who was a Canadian citizen and who was......
  • Department of Human Services v. Shelnut, No. 1999-CA-01494-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 14, 2000
    ...the enforcement of judgment entered in a foreign nation is governed by state law and the principle of comity. Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1987). The application of the principle of comity is a matter of discretion with the trial judge. Id. (citing Kountouris v. Varvaris, ......
  • Church v. Massey
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1997
    ...of comity in the enforcement and modification of foreign judgments rather than the application of substantive law. See Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So.2d 726, 729 (Miss.1987)("the principle of comity is similar to full faith and credit except that it This case does not present a question deali......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Reciprocity in China-US Judgments Recognition.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 53 No. 5, November 2020
    • November 1, 2020
    ...Ct. App. 2009) ("The recognition of the judgments of foreign countries is governed by principles of 'comity.'"); Laskosky v. Laskosky. 504 So. 2d 726, 729 (Miss. 1987) ("Enforcement of foreign nation judgments in our courts is governed by the principle of comity."); Kwongyuen Hangkee Co., 6......
  • A Hague conference judgments convention and United States courts: a problem and a possibility.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 61 No. 4, June 1998
    • June 22, 1998
    ...current state of the law, state law governs the enforceability of foreign judgments). (52) See id. at 78. (53) See Laskosky v. Laskosky, 504 So. 2d 726, 729 (Miss. 1987) ("Enforcement of foreign nation judgments in our courts is governed by the principle of comity.... and ... its applicatio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT