Marriage of Cline, In re
| Citation | 433 N.E.2d 51 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-881A239,1-881A239 |
| Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF: William CLINE, Appellant, (Petitioner Below), and Laurie D. Cline, Appellee, (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Howard B. Lytton, Jr., Steven E. Ripstra, Lytton & Ripstra, Jasper, for appellant.
William L. Shaneyfelt, Schneider, Lett, Shaneyfelt & Curry, Jasper, for appellee.
William Cline (William) appeals the decision of the trial court which declined to exercise its jurisdiction in a child custody determination pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law. Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-1 et seq.
We affirm.
William and Laurie D. Cline (Laurie) were married November 11, 1977. One child, William Robert Cline, was born of this marriage. The couple resided continuously in Dubois County until July 14, 1981 when Laurie and the child returned to her parents' home in California.
William filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Indiana on July 22, 1981 and also requested a temporary restraining order. The trial court issued an order which awarded William custody of the child and enjoined Laurie from interfering with William's care and custody of the child. Armed with this order, William proceeded to California on July 23, 1981.
William presented the order to the appropriate authorities who refused to enforce it because it was an ex parte order. William and his brother proceeded to find Laurie and then attempted to leave with the child. An incident arose out of this confrontation resulting in the police being required to restore order. William returned to Indiana the next day.
Laurie did not receive a copy of the restraining order until July 26, 1981. Laurie signed a petition for separation on July 25, 1981. The record reflects this petition was filed on July 28, 1981. In her petition, Laurie has alleged that she was a battered spouse. William has alleged that Laurie abused their child.
Laurie filed a motion to dismiss the petition for dissolution of marriage. The trial court held a hearing on this motion and the record reflects that the trial court contacted the California court, which informed the trial court of its willingness to entertain this matter. The record also reflects that California was seeking extradition of William because of the incident surrounding his attempt to take the child from Laurie. In its final order, the trial court declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the custody determination and limited itself to the dissolution of marriage and the division of property.
William alleges that the trial court erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction. William argues that the trial court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-3. This provision is part of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), which Indiana has adopted. The UCCJA establishes two main places of jurisdiction: the "home state" of the child and the state with a "significant connection" to the child. Brokus v. Brokus, (1981) Ind.App., 420 N.E.2d 1242. The "home state" is defined as the state in which the child has most recently resided for at least six consecutive months. Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-2(5). The language describing a state with a "significant connection" is phrased in more general terms, thus creating a more flexible statute which enables it to be utilized in more diverse factual situations. The commissioners of UCCJA, however, warn that the UCCJA is designed to limit jurisdiction, not to expand it. Brokus v. Brokus, supra.
When confronting an interstate custody dispute, the trial court must engage in a multistep analysis to determine first, whether it has subject matter jurisdiction and second, to determine whether it should exercise its jurisdiction. Clark v. Clark, (1980) Ind.App., 404 N.E.2d 23. In Clark, this court adopted the analysis contained in Carson v. Carson, (1977) 29 Or.App. 861, 565 P.2d 763. The trial court must first determine if it has jurisdiction under IC 31-1-11.6-3. If it has jurisdiction under this statute, the trial court must determine whether there is a custody proceeding pending in another state which presently has jurisdiction. If such a proceeding is pending, the Indiana court must decline to exercise its jurisdiction. Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-6. Finally, assuming the trial court has jurisdiction and there is no proceeding pending in another state, the court must determine whether to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-7 because Indiana is the convenient forum. Clark v. Clark, supra at 30.
The UCCJA has provisions designed to address questions similar to the present case. Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-6(c) provides:
If the court is informed during the course of the proceedings that a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in another state before the court assumed jurisdiction, it shall stay the proceeding and communicate with the court in which the other proceeding is pending to the end that the issue may be litigated in the more appropriate forum and that information be exchanged in accordance with sections 19 through 22 (31-1-11.6-19-31-1-11.6-22) of this chapter. If a court of this state has made a custody decree before being informed of a pending proceeding in a court of another state it shall immediately inform that court of the fact. If the court is informed that a proceeding was commenced in another state after it assumed jurisdiction it shall likewise inform the other court to the end that the issues may be litigated in the more appropriate forum.
Portions of Ind.Code 31-1-11.6-7 are also relevant:
(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.
(b) A finding of inconvenient forum may be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Green
-
Nancy Viola R. v. Randolph W.
...at 902. Other courts also regard spousal abuse as an important consideration in child custody cases. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Cline, 433 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind.Ct.App.1982); In re Marriage of Ballinger, 222 N.W.2d 738, 739 (Iowa 1974); Hosey v. Myers, 240 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1970); Schiele......
-
D.B. v. J.R.
...regard spousal abuse as an important consideration in child custody cases.” Id. at 714, 356 S.E.2d at 468 (citing In re Marriage of Cline, 433 N.E.2d 51, 54 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) ; In re Marriage of Ballinger, 222 N.W.2d 738, 739 (Iowa 1974) ; Hosey v. Myers, 240 So.2d 252, 253 (Miss.1970) ; Sc......
-
Funk v. Macaulay
...re Marriage of Hudson, (1982) Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 107, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1187, 75 L.Ed.2d 433; In re Marriage of Cline, (1982) Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 51; Brokus v. Brokus, (1981) Ind.App., 420 N.E.2d 1242 (cases in which issue was jurisdiction over initial custody procee......