The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Alternatively, a Florida court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction "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." § 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2022). Before doing so, however, the court must consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction, by considering all relevant factors, including eight statutory factors. § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2022).The former wife argues that the trial court abused its discretion in that it "either ignored or misinterpreted" the evidence presented at the hearing in the light of the factors set out in section 61.520. The former wife goes so far as to assert that the trial court "ignored the fact that all evidence as to every aspect of the children's lives is in Twin Falls, Idaho." She also contends that the trial court "misinterpreted and misapplied" one or more provisions of section 61.520. We reject the former wife's contentions of error. We do so because section 61.520 is not the correct statute through which to have the trial court relinquish (or "transfer") its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the custody and timesharing matters addressed in the final dissolution judgment. There is nothing in the record that would support such a relinquishment under the applicable statute, section 61.515.Finally, the record reflects that, once paternity testing was complete, the New Jersey tribunal determined the child had resided in Florida for eleven months preceding the filing of the petition. Consequently, it deferred to the Florida court and declined to exercise further jurisdiction. See § 61.519(1) Fla. Stat. ("[A] court of [Florida] may not exercise its [home state] jurisdiction ... [if] a proceeding concerning the custody of the child had been commenced in a court of another state [properly exercising] jurisdiction ... unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520. "); see also N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:34-70 (West). Under these circumstances, we conclude Florida retained "jurisdictional priority," and the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. See § 61.514(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; M.A.C. v. M.D.H., 88 So. 3d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) ("[T]he home state determination under section 61.514(1)(a) allows for Florida to exercise jurisdiction if, at any time within the six months preceding the filing of the petition, Florida qualified as the home… See § 61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2019) (providing that "[i]n the case of a child younger than 6 months of age, the term ["home state"] means the state in which the child lived from birth with [a parent or a person acting as a parent]"). As Florida is the Child's home state, the Florida court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination, see § 61.514(1)(a); Arjona v. Torres, 941 So. 2d 451, 454-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), but the Florida court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction "if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). Pursuant to section 61.520(2), prior to making this determination, the trial court "shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors," including eight enumerated factors.Finally, although the trial court determined it has jurisdiction over the minor children under the UCCJEA, that does not preclude the court from finding that Michigan is a more convenient forum. § 61.520(3), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper."); M.A.C. v. M.D.H. , 88 So. 3d 1050, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for the trial court to consider the factors listed in section 61.520(2)(a)–(h) before deciding to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA).(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and:(Emphasis added.) The UCCJEA provides that a court with jurisdiction over a custody matter may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if the court "determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." § 61.520(1).The mother also asserts the Florida court procedurally erred in accepting jurisdiction; however, we find no merit to this claim. First, the mother conflates the statutory burdens encumbering a court declining to exercise jurisdiction with the duty of a home state to accept transfer absent a reasoned determination that it is an inconvenient forum. See § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). Second, it is axiomatic that the Florida court acquired personal jurisdiction over the mother, as she appeared during the Florida proceedings and stipulated to the entry of a case plan. See C.J.L-M. v. Dep't Children & Families, 248 So. 3d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (holding "the mother's personal appearance at the shelter hearing obviated the need for service of process [of a subsequently filed dependency petition]") (citation omitted).We now address the specific forum non conveniens provision under the UCCJEA, section 61.520. Section 61.520 permits a court in this state that has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination to "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." § 61.520(1). Section 61.520(2) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, but lists several factors that the court must consider. Section 61.520(2) provides as follows:We have also explained that the UCCJEA provides that "a court with jurisdiction over a custody cause may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if the court ‘determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.’ " K.I. v. Dep't of Children & Families , 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010) ). However, an order declining to exercise jurisdiction requires the court to follow specific statutory procedures and considerations. Id .. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . See § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .
. . . . § 61.520(1), (4)(a). . . .
. . . Our analysis is directed by sections 61.515 and 61.520, Florida Statutes (2015). . . . We now address the specific forum non conveniens provision under the UCCJEA, section 61.520. . . . Section 61.520(2) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, but lists several factors that . . . Section 61.520(2) provides as follows: (2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a . . . See § 61.520(2)(e). . . .
. . . Dep’t of Children & Families, 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla. . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . See §§ 61.514, 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction . . . Section 61.520(3) specifically contemplates that the transferring court “shall stay the proceedings upon . . . Section 61.520(2) sets forth the matters to be considered as the trial court exercises its discretion . . . court may conduct a hearing and enter findings regarding the “relevant factors” set forth in section 61.520 . . .
. . . . §§ 61.510(3) and 61.520(1) and is therefore void.” . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . . § 61.520. . . . K.R.S. § 61.510(5) and § 61.520 do not themselves contain any criteria limiting or defining the discretion . . . The result was that K.R.S. § 61.520(1) and (4) were modified to include requirements that an employer . . . must be qualified to begin participation, K.R.S. § 61.520(1), and may continue participation only so . . . K.R.S. § 61.520(4). . . .
. . . The trial court denied the motion, filed pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2013), after weighing . . .
. . . The mother’s argument that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.520, . . .
. . . See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. . . . At the hearing on the husband’s motions, the court heard evidence on the factors in section 61.520(2) . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . and it ordered both parties to file affidavits addressing the statutory factors listed under section 61.520 . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . . paragraph of its order, the court references section 61.514(l)(a) in this paragraph and not section 61.520 . . . clearly directed both parties to address the relevant inconvenient forum factors listed in section 61.520 . . . may still decline to exercise jurisdiction after considering the statutory factors listed in section 61.520 . . .
. . . See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under . . .
. . . .” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . See § 61.520(1), (2)(a)-(h). . . . Section 61.520(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following factors to be considered by the trial court . . . ) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. § 61.520 . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . jurisdiction under s. 61.515 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . The UCCJEA defines the term “inconvenient forum” in section 61.520. . . . . § 61.520(2). . In one of the French court proceedings, Mr. . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . a courL of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . jurisdiction under s. 61.515 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . whether Florida or some other State would be a more appropriate forum as discussed in Florida Statute § 61.520 . . .
. . . propriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and: 1. . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . forum was now inconvenient and should not exercise further jurisdiction, in accordance with section 61.520 . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . conduct a hearing to determine jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum factors enumerated in section 61.520 . . . Under section 61.520, any party may raise the issue of inconvenient forum. . . . Section 61.520(2) provides that “[b]efore determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of . . . While it is unclear whether the trial court considered the relevant factors enumerated in section 61.520 . . .
. . . See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2005); Winton-Ibanez v. . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .