Personal jurisdiction is a set of rules for determining whether or not a specific state court may hear a case involving certain specific persons. How does a court decide which state will hear child support cases? UIFSA has rules for each step of the process of getting child support. Step One: Getting a court to issue the first child support order establishment ;. Step Two: Changing the amount of a child support order when the income of either parent has changed modification ; and.
Step Three: Pursuing collection of the order enforcement. How does a state court get personal jurisdiction over a parent? The non-custodial parent is personally served given a copy of documents in person with a summons or notice an official document telling the parent that he or she is directed to come to court within that state;.
The non-custodial parent voluntarily agrees to have the court of a particular state hear the matter;. The non-custodial parent fails to contest object to the jurisdiction issue;. The non-custodial parent lived with the child in the particular state at any point in the past;.
The child lives in the state as a result of the acts or directives of the non-custodial parent; or. The non-custodial parent engaged in sexual intercourse in the state, and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.
Personal jurisdiction over both parents required: To hear a new child support case, a court must have personal jurisdiction over both parents. See How does a state court get personal jurisdiction over a parent? If, at the time the custodial parent first applies for a child support order, both parents and child reside in the same state, the court of that state will enter the order.
If the whole family previously lived in the home state of the custodial parent and child, that state will continue to have personal jurisdiction over the non-custodial parent, even after he or she moves away.
The laws of the state that enters the first child support order are the laws that will determine the following:. If at least one parent still lives in the state that entered the first child support order: Under UIFSA, the state where the first child support order was entered has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
This means that, as long as at least one parent still lives in the first state to enter a child support order, that state is the only state that can change the order. The jurisdictional problems which arise in interstate custody disputes and the inability to have custody decrees enforced by other states became increasingly prevalent in the past few decades. Attempts to get the U.
Supreme Court to resolve this matter failed. Congress enacted the PKPA which forced every state to give full faith and credit to any custody decree, no matter in which state the decision was rendered. It also prevented other states from modifying a custody order issued by any other state. Many people do not know what a "Home State" is, however it is one of the most important factors in any child custody case, particularly if the child has moved out of state. A child's home state is defined as their legal residence for which they have resided for with a parent or with a "de facto" parent for a period of six months of longer immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.
If the child is less than six months old, then the place that the child lived from birth will be known as their home state. The failure of the UCCJEA to clearly enunciate that the state in which the original custody decree was granted retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in two problems.
States also have different interpretations as to how long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts have held that modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant leaves the State, regardless of how many years the child has lived outside the State or how tenuous the child's connections have become to the State. Other courts have held that continuing modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has established a new home State, regardless of how significant the child's connections to the original decree State remain.
The second problem arises when it is necessary to determine whether the State with continuing jurisdiction has relinquished it. One court may improperly exercise jurisdiction because it mistakenly believes that the other court has declined jurisdiction. The UCCJEA vests "exclusive and continuing jurisdiction" for child custody litigation in the courts of the child's home state.
If the child has not lived in any state for at least six months, then a court that has "significant connections" with the child may assume child custody jurisdiction. If more than one state has "significant connections" with the child, the courts of those states must communicate and determine which state has the most significant connections to the child.
A court which has made a child custody determination consistent with UCCJEA has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until that court determines that neither the child, the child's parents, nor any person acting as a parent has a significant connection with the State that made the original order and that substantial evidence is no longer available in the State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or that court or a court of another State determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the State that initially made the child custody order.
To determine which state has proper jurisdiction to make an initial determination of child custody, the UCCJEA proceeds in the following order of priority:. The state which is currently the home state of the child, or was the child's home state within six months immediately before the commencement of child custody proceedings if the child is absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;.
If no state has jurisdiction under 'a', then jurisdiction is proper where the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the states other than mere presence , and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available in the state;. If no state has jurisdiction under 'a' or 'b' above, jurisdiction is proper in any state having an appropriate connection with the child. For example, let's say that Jake and Kristen reside in Florida.
They have a baby and when the baby is three months old, Jake wants to move the family to California. The child now lives in California for a year. Kristen decides she wants a divorce and wants to move back to Florida where she grew up and where all of her family and friends are. For the purpose of determining the child's home state, the court would find that California has become the new home state of the child, and that the court system in California now has jurisdiction over any custody matters.
To further complicate matters, if the California courts have jurisdiction, they can decide it's not in the best interest of the child to break up the family and allow Kristen and the child to move back to Florida, because Jake would not be able to visit with the child.
Even if Kristen is granted permission to take the child and move back to Florida, the court system in California still retains jurisdiction over the matter. All proceedings are heard in California; therefore, Kristen has to hire an attorney in California and incur travel expenses due to traveling in between the two states. Parent relocation is one of the most common grounds for seeking a change in custody. The modification request may be submitted by a relocating parent who wants to take the child with them, or by a parent opposing relocation who wants the child to be placed with them.
If the relocation distance is small, there may not even be a material change in circumstances to warrant a modification to the existing child custody and visitation agreement. However, the non-custodial parent can file a petition to block the move with the court if he can show the move will negatively affect the child. If you can show that the move could damage your relationship with your child or that the child would be losing access to an important support system family, friends, school, medical or psychiatric care, etc.
In turn, if you wish to move out of state with your child, then you must first establish custody. If you only have visitation, then the court will only allow you to travel out of state with the child if you have permission from the custodial parent and for a temporary period, such as a vacation. For a more permanent solution, you will need to be granted custody.
If you wish to modify your visitation order to receive sole or joint custody of your child, you must prove in court why it would be beneficial for your child. First, you must consider why you were only granted visitation in the first place.
In either situation, you will need to show that you have overcome these issues and have established a continuous and meaningful relationship with your child. Showing a court that you are responsible enough to have custody and that it will benefit your child will require some effort. You should pull records of your visitation schedule, reports from social services or court officials, psychiatric evaluations, and other documents that can show you are committed to maintaining a healthy relationship with your child.
In more serious situations, the family court may grant you emergency custody if it feels that the custodial parent is a danger to your child. Emergency custody is typically granted to a visitation parent when the custodial parent:.
0コメント