Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

Issue about which court has the authority to rule in a child custody case when the parties have ties to more than one state are governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The aim of this Act is to reduce jurisdictional conflicts and promote the best interest of a child. Enforcement of this act was an issue in the case Dorvil v. Atwell, 3D24-0029 (Fla. 3d DCA December 4, 2024).

In this paternity case, the parties originally resided in Florida at the beginning of their relationship. Thereafter, they moved to South Carolina where they lived together until their relationship ended and the mother moved into her own residence in South Carolina, apparently while pregnant. Later the father learned the mother gave birth in Florida in 2018. In 2019, the mother filed a child support action in South Carolina. DNA testing confirmed the father’s paternity. The father then filed a petition for child custody in South Carolina of which the mother was on notice but in which she did not participate. The father had difficulty enforcing his visitation rights, and learned that the mother moved out of her South Carolina apartment. The father was eventually awarded temporary sole custody of the child and located the mother and child in Florida. He registered the South Carolina order there and was granted a pick-up order for return of the child to the father.

The mother was eventually located and the child was given to the father to reside in South Carolina. The mother was arrested on a warrant for custody interference. The South Carolina court eventually found it had jurisdiction over the case, granted the father full custody and gave the mother visitation at the father’s discretion. The mother moved to void the judgment on the grounds that the South Carolina court had no subject matter jurisdiction because South Carolina was not the child’s home state at the time the action was commenced. In the Florida proceeding, the father moved to dismiss the case on the basis that South Carolina had jurisdiction over the matter; the trial court dismissed the mother’s petition. The mother appealed, and while her appeal was pending, the South Carolina court granted the mother’s motion to void the order there, holding “[a]t the time [the] action was filed . . . South Carolina was not the home state of the minor child.” The mother moved to supplement the appellate record with this order and the father filed a motion to strike in the appellate proceeding.

First as to the motion to strike, the appellate court held it was proper for it to consider the supplemented record. The court denied the father’s motion to strike, holding “[T]he Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure authorize courts to recognize a party’s supplemental filing of decisional authority not in the record. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.225 (‘A party may file notices of supplemental authority with the court before a decision has been rendered to call attention to decisions, rules, statutes, or other authorities that are significant to the issues raised and that have been discovered after service of the party’s last brief in the cause.’)”

Turning to the mother’s argument that the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issue, the appellate court noted “Failure to provide a full evidentiary hearing on a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge can implicate due process.” The court continued “Though it did not conduct a full evidentiary hearing, the trial court here ‘heard argument on the [j]urisdictional [i]ssue’ during its July 2022 case management conference before dismissing the case. This Court need not decide whether this hearing satisfied due process because South Carolina’s vacatur order presents new circumstances for the lower court to resolve.”

The court held “The vacatur order states that South Carolina was not the child’s home state at the time Father filed the petition in January 2020. But the order also leaves open the question of which state is currently the child’s home state. ‘[W]e can go no further into the resolution of this jurisdictional quandary because as an appellate court we cannot render the initial factual determinations that still need to be made.’” The court concluded “The recent vacatur order presents new jurisdictional facts for the lower court to consider in the first instance. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the lower court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the child’s home state and determine whether section 61.519 requires communication with the South Carolina court.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine the next best steps in your case.