Posted on : September 12, 2016, By: Christopher Hildebrand
Meaning of “Home State”
Arizona adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). This law provides rules to determine which state has jurisdiction in competing child custody actions. Jurisdiction is based on which state has “home-state” status under the law. In the case of Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (2002), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed home-state status questions.
Facts of the Case
The parents were married in Arizona in November 1996. They moved back and forth between Arizona and Oklahoma during their marriage. Their child was born in Oklahoma in 1999. Mrs. Welch-Doden returned to Arizona in September and filed for divorce and custody on January 25, 2001. At all times, the child was with her.
Definition of Home State.
On February 6, 2001, the husband was served with notice of the Arizona petition. Two days later, he filed a petition for divorce and custody in Oklahoma. In the Oklahoma petition, he stated he had not been properly served with the Arizona petition.
On March 7, 2001, the husband entered a special appearance in Arizona to move to dismiss the Arizona petition. His attorney appeared by phone at a hearing on August 21, 2001. During the hearing, the trial judge spoke telephonically with the judge in the Oklahoma case. The trial judge ruled that Oklahoma had home state jurisdiction. The court found that Oklahoma had been the child’s home state within the six months before the petition was filed. Therefore, under the law, Oklahoma was entitled to jurisdiction even though Wife filed first.
The trial judge dismissed the Arizona action. The Oklahoma trial judge granted father’s divorce and awarded him custody. Wife, still in Arizona with the child, filed a special action and requested a stay of the Arizona order dismissing her action. The Court of Appeals granted an initial stay to review this matter. However, the court determined that the trial judge was correct in dismissing wife’s custody petition. It dissolved the stay and indicated that an opinion would follow.
Jennifer, thank you for being my attorney. I could not have been more pleased with the outcome of my family court hearing. Everything you have done for me throughout this case reflects in the final ruling of the judge. You helped me keep my head together and taught me a lot about myself as a person. I learned so much about my life from observing and listening to you. I will take all the advice you gave me to continue taking responsibility for my choices, continue to put the kids' needs first, and always stay truthful. Your diligence, dedication, and persistence in my case made what seemed impossible, possible. You are a wonderful person and an amazing attorney and I am stronger and more confident because of you.
I just want to again thank the Firm for working with me all that it has. I could not have done anything without everyone's assistance. You, Chris and Stacey have been and continue to provide me with compassion and hard work towards my case. Also a very special thanks to Kip for taking my case in the beginning. Also continued support from him and his dedication to providing me with his expertise in this matter.
After interviewing several law firms, I came across Jennifer Shick, and her firm, who I hired to represent me for my Family Court case. Jennifer has extensive knowledge of the law and is determined to bring the truth to every issue involved within the case. Throughout my case, Jennifer was prepared meticulously as well as went above and beyond all of my expectations. Even when the other party tried to differ from the truth, lie to the Judge, and turn situations around, Jennifer remained attentive and provided substantial evidence to show the judge the facts as well as the proof to support what was the best interests of my children. Additionally, Jennifer helped me endure many difficult experiences, situations and inspired me to remain positive throughout the entirety of my case. Her kindness, compassion, and professionalism helped me through very difficult times and made the process feel a thousand times lighter on my shoulders. She truly has my children and my best interest at heart and I trust her perspective as well as her honesty on each and every aspect of my case. She lessened the burden on my shoulders and even when I felt like the case was not going to go in my favor, Jennifer was open-minded and reassured me that the Judge would, in fact, see the truth, which he did and the case went in my favor. After nine months of court, everything finally came together. I cannot declare how much Jennifer has been an outstanding attorney. She addressed each and every issue with diligence, she cares about her clients and their families. Jennifer genuinely cares about her clients and her dedication to the details of the case was remarkable. Overall, I am extremely pleased with Jennifer’s services and I am truly thankful that I was so blessed to have her represent my children and me. I highly recommend Jennifer as one of the best attorneys in Arizona and if the situation ever arises, I will definitely have her represent my children and me again.
Dear Stacey and Kip, How can I ever thank you enough for helping me through the most difficult time in my life? I couldn't put into words my heartfelt gratefulness. You both were so compassionate and professional at every given moment throughout this process with me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me to regain my freedom.
I was a client of Attorney Kevin Park for the dissolution of a divorce in 2016. And since I had never had the need to hire an attorney before for any purpose, I was somewhat apprehensive of the process. But the very calm and professional demeanor of Mr. Park eased my fears. He adeptly answered all my questions and I clearly knew the process and what to expect. And the skilled manner he communicated with opposing counsel was perfect. When it came down to negotiating with my spouse’s counsel, I knew I had selected the best attorney for my situation. What I noticed and appreciated was that he was using just the right amount of pressure with opposing counsel as was necessary. If you find yourself in this situation, you will want a seasoned professional like Mr. Park on your side. I'm very grateful that he was my attorney and not the opposition!
Chris is a smart and aggressive attorney for his clients. Chris always tries to reach a fair settlement of his cases. I’ve represented clients when Chris was the opposing counsel and while he is professional and amicable to work with, he does not back off on what he needs to do for his client
Kevin Park of Arizona Estate Planning Attorneys was just what I needed for my divorce. He was very approachable and personable. He was quick to recognize what I needed and provided it quickly and efficiently. I hope to never need a divorce lawyer again, but if I know anyone else who does, I will definitely recommend Kevin.
I feel that Tracey Van Wickler is certainly one of the best family lawyers around. She is logical, intelligent, and truly cares. Tracey always does what is in the clients best interest, does it well, timely and with integrity. She is good at keeping her clients informed as to what is going on and clear in her communication both written and verbally. I have recommended Tracey to other people and will continue to recommend her. I recommended Tracey to someone who was having issues with their ex-wife and his response was, “I know how good she is because I went up against her and she ate me for lunch”. This same person was so impressed with her, he even recommended her to someone else, WOW, that is impressive! I am exceptionally happy with her attention to detail, her ability to explain things in ways that are easy to understand, as well as her ability to keep everyone focused on the most important things. I would recommend Tracey to anyone who may be in need of her services.
I retained Hildebrand Law after interview a number of firms in the valley. Working with Michael C. was incredibly easy and informative. My case progressed in such a organized and thought out way to ensure that my needs were met. Michael was incredibly proactive and was able to see far ahead into my case to steer clear of some roadblocks. I would not hesitate to recommend Michael Clancy, and Hildebrand Law in general, to anyone.
I have worked with Hildebrand law for about 8 years. They are always ready to serve, provide guidance and give you a few options. When they provide you options they also take the time to walk you through the pros and cons of each and give you a recommendation of what is best, but will listen to you and support whatever course you choose after making and educated choice. I’d recommend them to my closest friends and feel Chris Hildebrand is now a friend to me.
Despite the unfortunate situation I found myself in, Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law helped me maneuver every step with professionalism, expertise, and even a sensitivity that was an added bonus.Chris and his staff helped me even when I didn't know I needed the help. In other words. . . they made sure we did not leave anything undone. And in the rare instance we needed the expertise of another professional, Chris knew exactly who to recommend.Chris also knew, because of his experience, what to anticipate down the road of litigation. That meant we were better prepared to meet the challenges head on, which lead to a more equitable and fair outcome. I appreciated that Chris did his best to meet my every need in a timely fashion, even if I had a simple question that required only a phone call or e-mail or if we needed to talk face-to-face.I highly recommend Chris Hildebrand @ Hildebrand Law, PC.
The purpose of the UCCJEA is to set up a way to prevent jurisdictional child custody fights. To this end, the uniform law narrowed the focus to one issue: home state jurisdiction. The state with home state jurisdiction determines custody issues. However, Arizona statutes contain two separate and inconsistent ways of determining home state jurisdiction.
One defines the home state as the state where a child lived for six consecutive months immediately before the custody action. The other also requires that a child lives in the state for six months. However, the six months need not be immediately before the custody action. The six month period must be completed within the six months before the custody action.
Mrs. Welch-Doden argues that the former applies. The child left Oklahoma four months before she filed for custody. That means Oklahoma cannot be the home state. Husband argued for the second interpretation. The child lived in Oklahoma for a six month period. That period was completed four months before the custody action was filed.
The Court of Appeals found husband’s position more persuasive. The primary intent of the uniform law is more certainty in resolving the jurisdictional conflict. Therefore, the conflict should be resolved to strengthen the certainty of home state jurisdiction.
Home State Legal Definition.
The Court found it clear that Mr. Welch-Doden’s interpretation, not Mrs. Welch-Doden’s, was consistent with this purpose. The expanded definition of home state acts to enlarge the more limited definition of the home state.
The Court resolved the statutory conflict in favor of the broader definition. Home state jurisdiction does not require that the child live there six consecutive months immediately before the filing. Instead, the applicable time period to determine “home state” is “within six months before the commencement of the proceeding”.
The Court noted that wife’s reading would result in narrowing home state jurisdiction. It would also increase the number of jurisdictional disputes in competing jurisdictions. This is contrary to the UCCJEA’s purpose.
Best Interest Analysis No Longer Applicable
Wife also argues that the trial court should have considered the child’s best interests. However, this argument is contrary to the language of the uniform statute. The drafters of the UCCJEA found that disputes arose when “best interest” was used to determine jurisdiction. That language was intentionally omitted from the newly-drafted UCCJEA. Nor does the fact that Wife filed first to give Arizona jurisdiction.
The rule giving priority to first-in-time filing specifies that the filing must be in a state “having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter”. Because Oklahoma had home state jurisdiction, Arizona did not have jurisdiction “substantially in conformity with this chapter”.
The Court concluded that the trial court did not err in rejecting Mrs. Welch-Doden’s position. It agreed with the trial court that Oklahoma had home state jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed.