SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDERPetitioner–Appellant Brian M. Westerdahl (Westerdahl ) appeals pro se from the Family Court of the Third Circuit's (Family Court's ) March 28, 2014 Decision and Order After Evidentiary Hearing on (1) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Action in Home State as Being in the Best [Interest] of the Child Filed October 29, 2013(2) Petitioner's Motion and Affidavit for Temporary Relief Filed September 11, 2013 and (3) Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Action in Home State as Being in the Best Interest of the Child Filed October 29, 2013 (Decision and Order ).1 The Decision and Order concluded, inter alia, that Hawai‘i was an inconvenient forum to try the child custody action initiated by Westerdahl and that jurisdiction in Wisconsin was proper. Westerdahl urges this court to vacate the Decision and Order.
Upon careful review of the record and the brief submitted by Westerdahl, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Westerdahl's appeal as follows:
“A family court's decision to decline jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” NB v. GA, 133 Hawai‘i 436, 444, 329 P.3d 341, 349 (App.2014) (citing Fisher v. Fisher, 111 Hawaii 41, 46, 137 P.3d 355, 360 (2006) ).
HRS § 583A–207 (2006) states, in relevant part:
(a) A court of this State which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child-custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
(b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this State shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:
(1) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(2) The length of time the child has resided outside this State;
(3) The distance between the court in this State and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence;
(8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation; and
(9) The physical and psychological health of the parties.
The Family Court's Decision and Order addressed each of the nine statutory factors listed above and made the following findings:
a. Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which State can best protect the parties and the child. The Court concludes that domestic violence has occurred. The Court does not conclude that it is likely that domestic violence is likely to continue. The Court does conclude that both Hawaii and Wisconsin can protect the parties. However, the Court does conclude that Wisconsin would be a good place for the enforcement of the protection orders because of the great distance between Wisconsin and Hawaii and Respondent's representation that she now resides in Wisconsin and has no intention to return to Hawaii.
b. The length of time the child has resided outside this state . The fact that the child has now been out of the State of Hawaii for four months is not a factor to consider. Respondent left Hawaii because of domestic violence. The child has resided in the State of Hawaii for the majority of the child's life although the child is still of tender years. If the child was much older this factor would be relevant but because the child is of tender years the Court finds this is not an important factor for determining whether Hawaii is an inconvenient forum.
c. The distance between the court in this State and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction. The court concludes that the distance between Hawaii and Wisconsin is a relevant factor and concludes there will be a large distance between the non-custodial parent and the child.
d. The relative financial circumstances of the parties. The Court finds that Petitioner is employed full time and has been employed in that position for a while. The Court finds that Respondent earns basically minimum wage but does receive assistance from family. The Court finds that this is an important factor for consideration, namely the ability of one party to travel from or to Wisconsin to have significant contact with the minor child. The Court finds that Petitioner has a better financial circumstance to ensure contact with the minor child.
e. Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction. This is not a relevant factor for
...
