In re B.B.R. – Adoption – Child Custody
In re B.B.R., 566 A.2d 1032 (D.C. 1989).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This lawsuit involved a dispute over jurisdiction under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).
FACTS: Marita gave birth to a boy in Sacramento, California. Within hours of the delivery, Marita signed a release agreeing to allow the hospital to release her child to the Platts who resided in D.C. The release provided that Marita would retain all parental rights.
After details of the release were carefully explained to the Platts, the child was released to them and they returned to Washington, D.C. Three days later, Marita informed her physician that she had changed her mind and the Platts were contacted immediately. The Platts refused to return the child and Marita then commenced an action in California to obtain custody. The Platts countered with a suit in D.C.
Nine months after the child’s birth, D.C determined that it was the child’s home state for purposes of the PKPA and that the courts of D.C. had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. Two months later the California court ruled that it had exclusive jurisdiction and awarded custody to Marita. Marita then filed a counterclaim in the D.C. action to enforce the judgment of the California court.
The D.C. court granted Platts’ petition and denied enforcement of Marita’s counterclaims. The court reasoned that even though the Platts had wrongfully retained the child it was in the child’s best interests to stay with them. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE: How is jurisdiction determined under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act?
RULE OF LAW: Under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, jurisdiction for a child who does not have a home state is determined by who files their suit first and whether that person and the child have significant contacts within that state.
HOLDING AND DECISION: Marita filed her lawsuit first and met the requirements of the PKPA for a child that does not have a home state. Marita resided in California, the child was born there, the contract was signed there, and the Platts acquired the child in California subject to a clear unequivocal agreement stating that the child’s legal custody remained with Marita. Taken as a whole these ties constitute a significant connection.
Jurisdiction is an initial and key element to be determined in any judicial proceeding and the PKPA clearly requires that the home state requirement is to be resolved at the beginning of the process. The Act does not allow a contesting party to build up connection time within a state after the fact, particularly if that time was gained by wrongdoing by that party. The purpose of the Act is to deter interstate abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody and visitation awards. The order granting the adoption is reversed. It is for the California courts to determine the proper course. The initial decree ordering custody is stale and for the best interests of the child the matter must be reheard again in California.
DISPOSITION: Reversed.
Concurring (Farrell): The best interests of the child must be the focus of the future hearing and there must be no retribution against Platts.