Swanson v. Swanson
| Citation | 169 Idaho 782,503 P.3d 982 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48997 |
| Parties | Kaitlin Dyane SWANSON, Petitioner-appellant, v. Michael Ray SWANSON, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Smith Woolf Anderson & Wilkinson, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for Appellant.
Parsons Behle & Latimer, Idaho Falls, for Respondent.
This is a permissive appeal from a magistrate court's order denying a motion to accept jurisdiction and dismissing a petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ("UCCJEA"). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the magistrate court's order.
The facts in this matter are largely uncontested. Mother and Father married on December 29, 2016. On May 2, 2020, Child was born as issue of the marriage in Utah County, Utah. Following Child's birth, Mother and Father lived in Utah with Child until July 21, 2020, when Mother and Child relocated to Rigby, Idaho, without Father.
Since July 21, 2020, neither Child nor Mother have returned to Utah, although Father continues to live there. Father maintains that Mother expressed an intent to return to living in Utah by September 2020 and actively participated in searching for apartments with Father in Utah after she and Child moved to Idaho. Mother disputes that she ever expressed an intention to return to Utah after July 21. She notes that since that date, Child has been treated at an Idaho pediatric center six times, Mother changed her permanent address to one in Idaho, Mother obtained Idaho Medicaid benefits for her and Child, and Father indicated that he was seeking employment in Idaho.
On October 26, 2020, Father filed a petition for divorce from Mother in Utah County, Utah ("the Utah proceeding"). The same day, Father filed a motion for temporary orders seeking custody and visitation rights to Child. The Idaho magistrate court's decision in this case indicates that Mother filed an answer in the Utah proceeding on December 10.
Then, on February 5, 2021, Mother filed a petition for divorce from Father in Jefferson County, Idaho ("the Idaho proceeding"). After Father was served with Mother's petition on February 12, he retained Idaho counsel to specially appear and contest Idaho jurisdiction. Subsequently, Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother's petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing that the Utah court had "home state" jurisdiction.
Mother objected to the motion to dismiss and filed a motion for the Idaho magistrate court to accept child custody jurisdiction. Represented by a Utah attorney, Mother also filed a motion in the Utah court to stay the Utah proceeding and transfer child custody jurisdiction to the Idaho magistrate court. In that motion, Mother conceded that Utah was Child's home state for UCCJEA purposes and that the Utah proceeding was properly commenced. However, she argued that Utah was no longer a convenient forum and requested that the Utah court transfer jurisdiction on that basis.
The Utah court held oral argument on Father's motion for temporary custody orders and Mother's motion to transfer jurisdiction and issued its written order on April 12. Pertinent to this matter, the Utah court concluded that Utah was not an inconvenient forum and that Mother had stipulated in her answer that jurisdiction was proper in Utah.
Then, on May 13, 2021, the Idaho magistrate court heard oral argument on Mother's motion to accept jurisdiction and Father's motion to dismiss. Following the hearing, the Idaho magistrate court informally conferred with the Utah court about which state was the "more proper" home state, and concluded that the Utah court was the more appropriate jurisdiction to be the home state under the UCCJEA. The magistrate court entered a judgment on May 28, dismissing the Idaho proceeding.
On July 9, 2021, Mother moved the Idaho magistrate court for permission to immediately appeal its order to this Court under Idaho Appellate Rule 12.1, which the magistrate court granted. The magistrate court also indicated it would issue additional findings of fact and conclusions of law to assist this Court in addressing the issues raised on appeal.
The Idaho magistrate court issued a written decision on the motion to accept jurisdiction on August 4, 2021. The magistrate court noted that the UCCJEA provides guidance in instances where, as here, there are simultaneous custody proceedings. The magistrate court concluded that the UCCJEA mandates that the state in which the first petition was filed, if it has home state jurisdiction, is the proper jurisdiction unless the second state is a more convenient forum. The two judges conferred and concluded that Utah was the Child's home state at the time the Utah proceedings were initiated. The judges also concluded that Idaho was the Child's home state when the Idaho proceedings were initiated. Finally, the judges concluded that neither forum was more convenient than the other. Because the Utah proceedings were initiated first, and because Idaho was not a more convenient forum, the judges concluded Utah was the more appropriate forum for purposes of the UCCJEA. Therefore, the Idaho magistrate court denied Mother's motion to accept jurisdiction. Mother timely appealed.
Questions of subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law over which this Court exercises free review. T3 Enters., Inc. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc. , 164 Idaho 738, 745, 435 P.3d 518, 525 (2019) (quoting H.F.L.P., LLC v. City of Twin Falls , 157 Idaho 672, 678, 339 P.3d 557, 563 (2014) ). Similarly, this Court exercises free review over questions of statutory interpretation. Guzman v. Piercy , 155 Idaho 928, 934, 318 P.3d 918, 924 (2014) (citing Intermountain Real Props., L.L.C. v. Draw, L.L.C. , 155 Idaho 313, 317–18, 311 P.3d 734, 738–39 (2013) ).
Mother argues that the Idaho magistrate court erred in concluding that Utah was Child's home state. She asserts that for a child younger than six months old, the home state is exclusively the state in which the child has lived continuously from birth until the commencement of the proceedings. Since she and Child left Utah in July, three months before the Utah proceedings began, Utah could not have been Child's home state when Father filed for divorce there. She contends that because Child had lived in Idaho continuously for more than six months at the time she filed her petition, the magistrate court erred when it declined to exercise jurisdiction because Idaho was the child's only home state at that time.
In response, Father argues that the Idaho magistrate court reached the proper result for two reasons. First, he contends that the magistrate court correctly determined that Utah was Child's home state as of the date the Utah proceeding commenced because Child had lived in Utah from birth until July 21 and had not lived in Idaho for six months prior to his filing of a petition for divorce in Utah. Second, he argues that the UCCJEA allows home state jurisdiction when a state had been a child's home state in the preceding six months, the child is no longer in the state, and a parent continues to reside in the state. Thus, he contends, under the facts of this case Utah had jurisdiction on this alternate ground.
Resolution of this case hinges on our interpretation of the UCCJEA ( Idaho Code sections 32-11-101 to -405).
The objective of statutory interpretation is to derive the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Statutory interpretation begins with the literal language of the statute. Provisions should not be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in the context of the entire document. The statute should be considered as a whole, and words should be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings. It should be noted that the Court must give effect to all the words and provisions of the statute so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant. When the statutory language is unambiguous, the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body must be given effect, and the Court need not consider rules of statutory construction.
Nelson v. Evans , 166 Idaho 815, 820, 464 P.3d 301, 306 (2020) (quoting State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345, 361–62, 313 P.3d 1, 17–18 (2013) ).
This matter squarely presents the type of jurisdictional conflict the UCCJEA is designed to resolve. As we recently explained, Matter of Doe , 169 Idaho 328, 332, 495 P.3d 1016, 1023 (2021) (internal citations and quotations omitted). One purpose of the UCCJEA is to "[a]void jurisdictional competition and conflict with the courts of other States in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from State to State with harmful effects on their well-being." UCCJEA § 101, cmt. (1). Thus, we approach the jurisdictional dispute in this case mindful of our primary consideration in any proceeding affecting children—the best interests of the child. See, e.g. , Roberts v. Roberts , 138 Idaho 401, 403–04, 64 P.3d 327, 329–30 (2003) ().
In a case such as this, the UCCJEA addresses which court may exercise jurisdiction when there are simultaneous proceedings in different states concerning custody of the same child. See I.C. § 32-11-206. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial