Introduction

Sometimes a situation can arise in a family law case where one party lives in one state and the other party lives in a different state.

When this situation arises, the initial question is which state will exercise jurisdiction over the case and determine custody (legal decision-making and parenting time) for the parties’ child.

All states have adopted a similar set of laws known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, referred to as the UCCJEA.

This uniform set of laws addresses the issues of which state has jurisdiction over a child, and when that jurisdiction may transfer from one state to another.

Arizona Case Law

In Hubert v. Carmony, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed the manner in which the Arizona courts must decide whether or not to relinquish jurisdiction to another state under A.R.S. § 25-1037.

In Hubert, the father filed a petition in May 2019. The father had difficulty serving the mother because she fled to Texas.

The Arizona court initially granted orders in favor of the father and exercised its jurisdiction over the child as Arizona was what is called the child’s “home state.”

Fleeing Arizona

However, prior to a final resolution of the Arizona case, the mother filed a family law case in Texas.

The mother then moved to transfer jurisdiction from Arizona to Texas because that is where she and the child had been living for several months.

In addition, the mother argued that the father had committed domestic violence and agreed to an order of protection derived out of a Texas court.

UCCJEA Conference

Eventually, the two judges in Arizona and Texas had a phone call to discuss the case and which state should take jurisdiction. Based on that phone call, the Arizona court decided that Texas was the more convenient forum and relinquished jurisdiction to the Texas court.

The father appealed, arguing that the Arizona court failed to follow A.R.S. § 25-1037 and enter specific findings on all of the factors in that statute to determine whether Arizona was an inconvenient forum. Further, the father argued that the Arizona court should have held an evidentiary hearing so each party could present evidence for the court’s consideration.

UCCJEA on Appeal

On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the father.

The Arizona statute language uses the word shall when referencing the court’s duty to consider the enumerated factors. Therefore, the family court was obligated to consider all of those factors.

Further still, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the family court also should have held an evidentiary hearing.

Citing to another case from a few years back, Volk v. Brame, the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that due process requires a court to provide a forum for witness testimony and cannot resolve matters of credibility based on documents alone.

Based on these determinations, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Arizona family court ruling, and remanded so the family court could hold an evidentiary hearing and then enter findings pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-1037 as required by the law.

Concluding Thoughts

This case is helpful in that it clarifies the statute and will put judges on notice going forward that any decision on whether an Arizona court should retain jurisdiction or relinquish it to another state under A.R.S. § 25-1037 must hold an evidentiary hearing and also must consider all of the statutory factors before entering a ruling.

If you have an interstate custody dispute and need help keeping a case or transferring a case to an Arizona court, feel free to contact me here.