670 P.2d 287 (Wash. App. 1983)
Ronald Hudson and Susan Hudson married in Bloomington, Indiana in January 1975.1 Susan was a lifelong resident of Indiana. At the time of the marriage Susan had custody of her natural child Christine from a former marriage whom Ronald legally adopted. Ronald was enlisted in the United States Navy.2
The parties initially resided in Bloomington for approximately one and a half years. In mid-1976 Ronald was transferred to Iceland where the parties and Christine resided for approximately two and a half years and where the parties had two children Thomas and Monique.3 In 1978 Ronald was transferred to Washington for a one-year program at the University and the parties and their three children resided in Bremerton for nine months until July 1979.4 Susan then returned to her parents' home in Indiana and lived there for approximately one and a half months before returning to Washington in August 1979. She returned to Indiana in December 1979 with the children where she has since resided.5 Ronald continuously claimed Oregon as his voting and legal residence.6
In January 1980 Ronald was transferred to a military installation in Rota Spain.7 On March 12 1980 Ronald forcibly removed Monique and Thomas from Susan's custody in Indiana and took them to Spain.8 On the same day Susan filed a petition for dissolution and child custody in the Vigo Superior Court in Indiana.9 Ronald was served notice by mail on March 24 1980. On April 11 1980 counsel for Ronald appeared and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and in personam jurisdiction.10 After a hearing and submission of briefs the trial court denied the motion and set the petition for hearing. On July 15 1980 the Indiana trial court entered a decree of dissolution distributed the marital property and awarded Susan custody of the three children.11
Thereafter Susan petitioned for issuance of a rule to show cause stemming from Ronald's alleged failure to relinquish custody and pay support.12 Susan brought an enforcement proceeding in the Kitsap County Superior Court in Washington under RCW 26.27.150.13 The Washington court ordered Ronald to transfer physical custody of the children to Susan. Ronald appealed that order to the Court of Appeals of Washington Division II.14
Whether the Indiana trial court possessed jurisdiction to dissolve the parties' marriage?15
A court has jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage when one spouse satisfies the statutory six-month residency requirement at the time the petition is filed.16
Yes. Susan was a lifelong resident of Indiana at the time of her marriage to Ronald in January of 1975.17 The parties married in Bloomington, Indiana.18 Susan returned to Indiana in December of 1979 with the children and has since resided there.19 She filed the petition for dissolution on March 12, 1980, satisfying the residency requirement under Indiana law.20
The Indiana trial court possessed jurisdiction to dissolve the parties' marriage.21
Whether the Indiana trial court possessed jurisdiction to distribute the parties' property?22
Jurisdiction to distribute marital property requires that a spouse maintain continuous residency in the state sufficient to meet statutory prerequisites beyond mere filing residency.23
No. Although Susan returned to Indiana in December of 1979 with the children, the family's prior residences in Iceland for two and a half years and in Washington for nine months interrupted any continuous Indiana residency. Ronald maintained his legal residence in Oregon throughout the marriage and never established continuous ties in Indiana.24 These facts show that Susan did not satisfy the continuous residency requirement necessary for jurisdiction over marital property distribution under Indiana law.25
The Indiana trial court lacked jurisdiction to distribute the bulk of the marital property.26
Whether the Indiana trial court possessed jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to award custody of the parties' three children?27
Under the UCCJL, a court may exercise jurisdiction if the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state and substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is available there.28
Yes. Susan established residency in Indiana with her parents in December of 1979.29 The children resided with her there until Ronald's removal on March 12, 1980.30 Christine attended school in Indiana and the family had lived together in Indiana for one and a half years earlier.31 Substantial evidence regarding the children's care and relationships was available in Indiana, satisfying the significant connections test after no state qualified as the home state.32
The Indiana trial court possessed jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to award custody of the parties' three children.33
Whether the Indiana trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over the custody proceedings violated Ronald Hudson's due process rights?34
Custody determinations are status adjudications that fall under the status exception to minimum contacts requirements, so personal jurisdiction over an absent parent is not required when reasonable notice is given.35
No. Ronald received notice by mail on March 24, 1980, and appeared specially through counsel.36 Custody proceedings concern the child's status rather than in personam claims against a parent.37 The significant connections test focuses on the child and family rather than one parent's contacts.38 This satisfies due process under the status exception without violating traditional notions of fair play.39
The Indiana trial court's exercise of jurisdiction over the custody proceedings did not violate Ronald Hudson's due process rights.40
Whether the courts of Washington are mandated to recognize and enforce the Indiana custody decree?41
RCW 26.27.130 requires Washington courts to recognize and enforce an initial custody decree of another state that assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.42
Yes. Indiana has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act as set forth in Ind. Code Ann. §§ 31-1-11.6-6 et seq.43
The Indiana court determined that no state qualified as the children's home state at the time the petition was filed.44 It instead exercised jurisdiction under the significant connections test because the children and Susan had substantial connections with Indiana and substantial evidence concerning their care was available there.45 Because the Indiana decree was rendered under provisions substantially in accordance with the Uniform Act, RCW 26.27.130 mandates that Washington courts recognize and enforce it.46
The courts of Washington are mandated to recognize and enforce the Indiana custody decree.47