Also known as: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A uniform statute that establishes jurisdictional standards for initial child custody determinations and for enforcement and modification of custody orders across state lines. The statute prioritizes home state jurisdiction and provides rules for continuing exclusive jurisdiction in the state that rendered the initial decree.
Uriel Urban files an adoption petition in County C after caring for the child in County D for several years. Because the UCCJEA excludes adoption proceedings, the court cannot rely on the Act's home state or significant connection rules. The court must instead apply the state's separate residency statute for adoption venue and consider whether prior dependency proceedings in another state affect the filing.
Ursula Upton obtains a custody decree in State A. Two years later she relocates with the child to State C. The other parent remains in State A and files a modification petition there. Under the UCCJEA the State A court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction because the child and at least one parent still have a significant connection with State A and substantial evidence remains available there.
In December 2008 Birth Mother, who is predominantly Hispanic, and Biological Father, a member of the Cherokee Nation, became engaged. One month later Birth Mother informed Biological Father that she was pregnant. After learning of the pregnancy Biological Father asked Birth Mother to move up the wedding date but refused to provide financial support until after they married. The couple's relationship deteriorated and Birth Mother broke off the engagement in May 2009. In June 2009 Birth Mother sent Biological Father a text message asking whether he would rather pay child support or relinquish his parental rights; Biological Father responded via text that he relinquished his rights. Birth Mother decided to place the child for adoption. Working through a private adoption agency she selected Adoptive Couple, non-Indians living in South Carolina. Adoptive Couple supported Birth Mother emotionally and financially throughout the pregnancy and were present at Baby Girl's birth in Oklahoma on September 15, 2009. The next morning Birth Mother signed forms relinquishing her parental rights and consenting to the adoption. Adoptive Couple initiated adoption proceedings in South Carolina a few days later and returned there with Baby Girl. It is undisputed that for the duration of the pregnancy and the first four months after Baby Girl's birth, Biological Father provided no financial assistance to Birth Mother or Baby Girl. He had the ability to do so. Approximately four months after the birth Adoptive Couple served Biological Father with notice of the pending adoption. Biological Father signed papers stating that he accepted service and was not contesting the adoption, but later testified that he thought he was relinquishing his rights to Birth Mother. Biological Father contacted a lawyer the day after signing the papers and subsequently requested a stay of the adoption proceedings. In the adoption proceedings Biological Father sought custody and stated that he did not consent to the adoption. A paternity test verified that he was Baby Girl's biological father. A trial took place in the South Carolina Family Court in September 2011 by which time Baby Girl was two years old. The Family Court denied Adoptive Couple's petition for adoption and awarded custody to Biological Father. On December 31, 2011 at the age of 27 months Baby Girl was handed over to Biological Father whom she had never met. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the adoption and the award of custody to Biological Father. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The UCCJEA gives priority to home state jurisdiction. A state is the home state if the child has lived there with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding begins.
A state loses continuing exclusive jurisdiction when it determines that neither the child nor the child and one parent have a significant connection with the state and that substantial evidence is no longer available there, or when a court determines that the child, the parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the state.
…Indian”). The majority’s interpretation of ICWA is also inconsistent with the views of 18 States that have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The UCCJEA is a uniform act designed to avoid jurisdictional conflicts between States in child custody proceedings. See Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act §101…
…and living children. : Other states have considered the question in the context of the predecessor statute to the UCCJEA, the Uniform
Yes. A court may issue a temporary enforcement order to give practical effect to a vague visitation provision in the out-of-state order, provided the order is time-limited and leaves substantive modification authority with the issuing court.
Supporting sources
No. The UCCJEA expressly excludes adoption. Most states therefore either added adoption to the UCCJEA's coverage or adopted the jurisdictional provisions of the Uniform Adoption Act to fill the resulting gap.
Supporting sources
The petition and order must be served by a method authorized by state law on both the respondent and any person who has physical custody of the child. Proper service on the respondent alone is sufficient when that person is also the physical custodian.
Supporting sources