The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Section 61.521(1), Florida Statutes, provides "if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction." Essentially, section 61.521 provides that when a party has engaged in unjustifiable conduct to establish jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a Florida court shall decline, not accept, that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is clear that unjustifiable conduct does not confer jurisdiction on a court where it otherwise does not have it. It simply operates as a basis for the court to decline jurisdiction if a party engages in it. See Benson, 901 So. 2d at 895 (" ‘[U]njustifiable conduct’ does not vest jurisdiction in a court; [instead] ‘unjustifiable conduct’ by a person seeking to invoke jurisdiction is a basis for a court declining jurisdiction.").
(c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
(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:
(c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
(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:
Petitioner asks this court to direct the circuit court to consider assessment of fees and costs to the wife under the provisions of section 61.521(3), Florida Statutes. We decline to address this issue, finding that it should first be presented to the circuit court.
(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:
(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 . . .
(c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
The circuit court's determination that Florida is the child's home state was made after a general discussion of public policy, not with reference to statutory authority. Section 61.514(1) is "the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state." § 61.514(2); see also Mainster v. Mainster, 466 So.2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that Florida was not home state for minor child removed without parent's permission to Virginia, because she had been living there for over six months preceding the father's filing of emergency petition for temporary custody). At the February 1, 2005 hearing it appears that the Texas court was willing to let the Florida court have the case, if the Florida court found jurisdiction. At a November, 2004, telephone hearing, the Texas court indicated that it believed Florida might decline jurisdiction and was prepared to take jurisdiction if Florida declined to do so. The dismissal of the case in Texas appears to be based on the decision of the Florida circuit court to take over jurisdiction. In an April 13, 2005 order by the Texas court, there is no explicit ruling that because of the father's…
. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520, or s. 61.521 . . .
. . . the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 [the “inconvenient forum” section of the UC-CJEA] or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .
. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . See § 61.521(1), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . circuit court to consider assessment of fees and costs to the wife under the provisions of section 61.521 . . .
. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .
. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .
. . . propriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and: 1. . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .
. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . See § 61.521(1). Petition for writ of prohibition granted. WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . . .