Glanzner v. State, DSS – Child Custody – Choice of Law
Glanzner v. State, Dep’t of Social Services, 835 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. 1992).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over conflicting child custody decrees.
FACTS: H and W were married and had one son. H was in the military and the couple were separated and moved frequently. In 1985, the family relocated to Missouri and resided there for 9 months until W and the child returned to California. In December W filed for legal separation and custody in California. H filed a motion to quash service and filed a petition for dissolution in Missouri. The motion to quash in California was conducted and included a phone consultation with the judge in Missouri.
The California court found that the child had resided in the state for the six months prior to the filing of the Missouri petition and found that California had the most significant contacts regarding the child. The court held that under the UCCJA California was the proper jurisdiction. Custody was granted to W and H was ordered to pay $253 per month in child support as well as $151 per month in spousal support. The marriage was dissolved in November 1986 and H was ordered to pay child and spousal support and maintenance.
W then filed a special appearance to the Missouri action. That objection was overruled by the Missouri court and a default decree was entered giving H custody and reasonable visitation to W. For the next six years nothing happened although H claimed that W had interfered with visitation rights. Eventually the paternal grandparents got W to allow the child to visit Missouri but then refused to allow him to return. W filed for habeas corpus and was allowed to take the child after posting a bond. H defended the habeas action with his Missouri custody determination and that the California orders were contrary to UCCJA.
ISSUE: Under the UCCJA and PKPA does a home state take precedence for resolution of jurisdictional matters and priority of court orders?
RULE OF LAW: Yes. Under the UCCJA and PKPA a home state takes precedence for resolution of jurisdictional matters and priority of court orders.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The question becomes which decree is entitled to enforcement. H contends that he had home state advantage because the children resided in Missouri the six months prior to the initiation of actions by W in California and W had only lived in California for 51 days prior to the suit being filed. As the child was absent from the state for only 74 days when H filed his Missouri action, Missouri had been the child’s home state within six months before commencement of the proceeding. W was served with summons and petition on July 17, 1986 in the Missouri action and she did not object to that service.
Under these facts the PKPA is immaterial to the child custody question because Missouri was the child’s home state under both California and Missouri versions of the UCCJA and under their versions of the PKPA. Under the PKPA any decree made consistently with the provisions of the PKPA shall be enforced by the court of another State. Under Section 1738A(c) the court must first have jurisdiction under the laws of the state and one of the conditions enumerated in 1738A(c)(2) must be met. California was not the home state. Further analysis shows that the California decree is not enforceable as it appears that another state would have jurisdiction under the home state provisions. There is no further evidence that the child has been abandoned or subjected to threatened mistreatment or abuse. Further Missouri had jurisdiction and did not decline to exercise it. Also, California did not enter a decree consistent with the requirements of the PKPA. California is required to give full faith and credit to the Missouri decree as it was made consistent with the PKPA. The PKPA preempts conflicting state law in interstate custody matters. Congress enacted the PKPA to avoid jurisdictional competition and to facilitate enforcement of sister decrees in other states. Missouri was the only state that could enter a decree consistent with the PKPA unless it declined to exercise jurisdiction.
DISPOSITION: W’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus denied.