Tag: Interstate custody

Upcoming Speaking Engagement

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

I will be speaking at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando from January 25th to January 26th. I will be discussing interstate child custody, interstate family support, and The Hague Convention on international child abductions. The event is co-sponsored by the Florida Bar Family Law Section and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Speaking Engagement

Interstate Custody

Parents move from state to state for various reasons. It is a subject matter I have written and spoken about many times. Whether children are moved by parents wrongfully or not, moving your children creates interstate custody and support and problems.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, can be critical laws to know in those cases.

International Child Abductions

What happens if your children are wrongfully abducted or retained overseas? If that happens, you must become familiar with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention.

This international treaty exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence.

The Hague Convention applies only in jurisdictions that have signed the convention, and its reach is limited to children ages 16 and under. Essentially, The Hague Convention helps families more quickly revert back to the “status quo” child custody arrangement before an unlawful child abduction.

If your children are wrongfully taken out of the country or wrongfully retained after the time for returning them passed, the Hague Convention can help you get them back.

Interstate Family Support

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, the UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders.

The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States.

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement.

Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.

Certification Review

It is a privilege to be invited to speak on interstate custody and international child abductions at the annual Family Law Board Certification Review Seminar again.

The annual seminar is the largest, and most prestigious advanced family law course in the state. Last year’s audience included over 1,600 attorneys and judges from around the state.

The review course is co-presented by the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Registration information is available here.

 

Upcoming Speaking Engagement

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

I will be speaking at the Florida Bar Family Law Section and AAML’s, Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando on Friday, January 26th. I will be discussing interstate child custody, interstate family support, and The Hague Convention on international child abductions.

Interstate Custody

Parents move from state to state for various reasons. It is a matter I have often written about . Whether children are moved by parents wrongfully or not, moving creates interstate custody and child support and spousal support problems. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and The Hague Convention on Child Abduction, can work together in those cases.

International Child Abductions

You should become familiar with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as The Hague Convention. This international treaty exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring the prompt return to their habitual residence.

The Hague Convention applies only in jurisdictions that have signed the convention, and its reach is limited to children ages 16 and under. Essentially, The Hague Convention helps families more quickly revert back to the “status quo” child custody arrangement before an unlawful child abduction.

If your ex has taken your children out of the country against your will, the Hague Convention can help you get them back.

Interstate Family Support

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, the UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders.

The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States.

In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement.

Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.

Certification Review

It is a privilege to be asked to address interstate custody and international child abductions at the annual Family Law Board Certification Seminar again.

The annual seminar is the largest, and most prestigious advanced family law course in the state. Last year’s audience included over 1,600 attorneys and judges from around the state.

The review course is co-presented by the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, and the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

More information is available here.

 

Speaking Engagement

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

For readers who may be interested, I will be speaking at the prestigious Marital & Family Law Review Course in Orlando on Friday, January 26, 2018. I will be addressing the issues of interstate child custody, interstate support, and international child abductions under The Hague Convention.

The Review Course

The 2018 Marital & Family Law Review Course is considered the premier advanced, continuing education opportunity for marital and family law attorneys and judicial officers in Florida.

It is a privilege to be asked to address interstate custody and international child abductions at the annual Family Law Board Certification Seminar again. The seminar is the largest, and most prestigious advanced family law course in the state. Last year’s audience included 1,600+ attorneys and judges.

The review course is co-presented by the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, and The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Interstate Custody

I’ve written about interstate and international custody cases before. Generally, when two parents reside in Florida, Florida custody laws will apply. However, when one of the parents and the child move across state lines, you have an interstate custody problem.

But, which law applies? Historically, family law is a matter of state rather than federal law. So, you would look to the state law of Florida, for example, in deciding an interstate case; not Federal law.

For various reasons, people travel more. As a result, family law has to take on an interstate, and international component. Accordingly, the conflicts between states can be amplified.

To help with confusion between different laws in different American states, the Uniform Law Commission is tasked with drafting laws on various subjects that attempt to bring uniformity across American state lines.

With respect to family law, different American states had adopted different approaches to issues related to interstate custody, visitation, and time-sharing. The results were that different states had conflicting resolutions to the same problems.

To seek harmony in the area of interstate custody, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA), which Florida and almost all U.S. states passed into law.

The UCCJEA: Initial Actions

The most fundamental aspect of interstate custody under the UCCJEA is the approach to the jurisdiction needed to start a case. In part, the UCCJEA requires a court have some jurisdiction vis-a-vis the child.

That jurisdiction is based on where the child is, and the significant connections the child has with the forum state, let’s say Florida for this example.

The ultimate determining factor in a Florida case then, is what is the “home state” of the child.

There is a good reason for the ‘home state’ approach under the UCCJEA, which has been adopted by most state laws. That is that Florida – and the other states – all have a strong public policy interest in protecting children in their states.

You can register for the 2018 Marital & Family Law Review Course here.

 

Losing Custody through Parental Alienation

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In Britain, parents can now lose child custody, and even be denied contact with their children, if they attempt to poison their children against the other parent under a new pilot program to stop parental alienation. What is parental alienation and why should you lose custody over it?

According to the London Independent, the groundbreaking initiative, being tried by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), is designed to tackle the problem officially known as “parental alienation” where one parent turns a child against the other so they do not want to see them.

In the UK, Cafcass represents children in family court cases to make sure that children’s voices are heard and decisions are taken in their best interests.

Cafcass is independent of the courts, social services, education and health authorities. It was established in 2001 to bring together the family court services previously provided by the Family Court Welfare Service, the Guardian ad Litem Service and the Children’s Division of the Official Solicitor’s Office. It is accountable to the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice.

Cafcass – which has been criticized for being slow to tackle the issue – said the problem is widespread and occurs in a substantial number of the 125,000 cases it deals with annually.

Florida Child Custody Modification

I’ve written about interstate and international child custody issues before, and how to modify child custody provisions.

The custody provision in a final judgment can be materially modified only if:

  • there are facts concerning the welfare of the child that the court did not know at the time the decree was entered, or
  • there has been a change in circumstances shown to have arisen since the decree.

To satisfy the substantial change of circumstances test, the party seeking modification must show both that the circumstances have substantially, materially changed since the original custody determination and that the child’s best interests justify changing custody.

Parental Alienation

Parental Alienation is a mental condition in which a child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict separation or divorce – allies strongly with one parent and refuses without good cause to have a relationship with the other parent.

This process takes place when a parent or caregiver encourages the child’s rejection of the other parent.

Parental alienation is driven by the false belief that the rejected parent is evil, dangerous, or not worthy of affection.

When the phenomenon is properly recognized, the condition is preventable and treatable in many instances.

Parental alienation, if proved by competent, substantial evidence, can justify a request for a modification of a time-sharing provision in a final judgment.

Parental Alienation in Britain

Cafcass’s, Sarah Parsons, said: “We are increasingly recognizing that parental alienation is a feature of many of our cases and have realized that it’s absolutely vital that we take the initiative.

Our new approach is groundbreaking.

From spring 2018, Cafcass caseworkers will be issued with guidelines known as the “high conflict pathway” setting out steps social workers should take when dealing with suspected cases of parental alienation.

The pathway will spell out at what stage children should be removed from the parent responsible for the alienation and placed with the “target parent”.

A father who was the victim of alienation, speaking anonymously, told the Guardian:

I’ve lived through and witnessed the inexorable alienation of my older daughter over the past five years, which has culminated in complete loss of contact.

The Independent’s article on alienation is here.

 

Foreign Custody and Sex Discrimination

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A recent interstate child custody case from Mali sheds light on sex discrimination in foreign courts. Should an American court honor a foreign court’s custody order if the foreign country favors men over women in custody cases? An Indiana court just answered that question.

A Mother appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals a trial judge’s refusal to modify a child custody order from the west-African nation of Mali in favor of the Father.

The Mother argued that the trial judge was not required to enforce the Malian court’s order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because the order from Mali was the product of laws that violate fundamental human rights.

Indiana, like Florida, has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Under the UCCJEA courts must enforce foreign custody decrees if it was issued by the country that was the child’s home state.

Enforcement is especially required if everyone was given notice and opportunity to be heard, and the child custody laws of the foreign country don’t violate fundamental principles of human rights.

The big question was whether Mali child custody laws violate human rights principles as Indiana courts understand them.

Florida and the UCCJEA

I’ve written and spoken many times on international custody involving the UCCJEA and The Hague.

The UCCJEA is a uniform act, and was adopted by all U.S. states except Massachusetts; which still follows the older UCCJA.

The UCCJEA was made to harmonize custody, visitation, timesharing and parental responsibility because different states and countries have different approaches to family law issues.

Florida treats foreign countries as if they were states of the United States for purposes of applying the UCCJEA. So, a child custody order made in a foreign country in substantial conformity with Florida’s UCCJEA must be recognized and enforced here.

However, under the UCCJEA Florida does not need to enforce or recognize the foreign order if the child custody law of a foreign country violates fundamental principles of human rights.

That was the issue the Indiana court had to decide.

The Indiana Case

The Mother and Father are both dual citizens of France and Mali, and divorced in Mali. Both parties asked for custody of the children.

After the trial, but before the Mali court issued an order, the Mother took the children to France, and the Malian court then awarded the Father custody.

The Mother never returned the children, unsuccessfully sought Mali and France then moved to Indiana and filed her case there.

The Indiana court rejected the Mother’s argument under the UCCJEA that the custody laws of Mali violate fundamental human rights because it favors men over women.

The Mother argued that Mali’s divorce law is fault-based, have a preference for men in child custody decisions because under Mali law, the following were tru:

  • The husband owes protection to his wife, the wife obedience to her husband.
  • The husband is deemed the head of the household,
  • The husband has the right to choose the family residence, and the wife must live with him and he must receive her.
  • A woman is prohibited from running a business without her husband’s permission.
  • Mali has failed to outlaw female genital mutilation

However, the Indiana court found that Mali did not actually apply the statutory custody presumption in favor of Father.

Instead the Indiana court found that under Mali law, custody could be awarded to Father or Mother. Additionally, in the Mali case under review, the best interests of the children controlled this decision.

The Female Genital Mutilation Argument

A 1999 United States Agency for International Development funded study in Mali was conducted, and found that 93.7% of women had gone through some form of female genital mutilation, usually when they are young.

The Indiana court rejected the Mother’s argument about Mali’s failure to outlaw female genital mutilation – in part because it noted that the father had condemned the practice.

Under the UCCJEA, while female genital mutilation is itself a human rights violation, Mali’s failure to pass a law specifically prohibiting the practice does not in and of itself constitute a violation of fundamental principles of human rights.

The Indiana Court of Appeals decision is here.

 

Should You Marry Someone From Another State?

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

When Wisconsinites choose a spouse, there’s just something about those Minnesotans that they find irresistible. Time magazine looked at over 100 million interstate marriages to make the analysis. The analysis also raises the issue of interstate custody.

Do We Marry Local?

Time magazine recently did an analysis of which states were most compatible when it comes to marriages. To figure this out, Time examined data on 116 million “interstate marriages” in which the partners were born in different states.

For people from each state, they looked at the most common home states for their spouses compared to the national average.

While people are generally most likely to marry someone from the same home state as themselves — eat local, and “marry local,” you might say — those who choose a spouse born in a different state don’t tend to drift very far.

To be clear, while Texans are much more likely than most other people to marry a Louisianan, there are still more total marriages between Texans and Californians, since California is such a large state. Whether you’re from California or your spouse is from Texas, if you have a child, this could have an interstate custody issue.

Your Interstate Child

I’ve written on the issue of interstate custody before, and was recently invited to speak at a state-wide presentation. There are two major interstate, uniform acts that have been adopted by almost every state in the U.S. The first, UIFSA, deals with interstate children support. The Second, UCCJEA, deals with custody.

UIFSA is a uniform act drafted by the Uniform Law Commission, and forcibly adopted by all U.S. states by federal law. Historically, multiple orders, issued by different states, created confusion; courts were unsure which orders were to be enforced, and it was easy to reduce, delay and evade enforcement by moving across state lines.

The purpose of UIFSA is to improve and extend the enforcement of duties of support so that once a foreign support order is registered in Florida, it has the same effect as a Florida order.

The UCCJEA, like the UIFSA, is another uniform act drafted by the ULC, and adopted by all U.S. states except Massachusetts. Different states have different approaches to issues related to custody, and inconsistent rulings about custody could create major problems.

The UCCJEA and the UIFSA share common features and concepts, and in places, the two acts have nearly identical provisions. However, they deal with different family law issues (custody and support) which can strongly impact how the two Acts are implemented.

The general purposes of the UCCJEA are: to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; insure that a custody decree is rendered in the state which enjoys the superior position to decide what is in the best interest of the child; deter controversies and avoid re-litigation of custody issues; facilitate enforcement of custody decrees; and promote uniformity of the laws governing interstate custody issues.

Idahoans Love Utahans

According to Time, some of these bonds are stronger than others. While Michiganders are about equally likely to pair off with someone from Wisconsin, Ohio or Indiana, people from Utah and Idaho share a deep, mutual connection.

If you were born in Utah, for example, you are 15 times more likely to marry an Idahoan than someone from elsewhere — a bond that may be strengthened by the fact that they have the largest concentrations of Mormons, according to a 2013 Gallup poll.

On the other hand, most connections between states are not mutual. A person from South Dakota has the most disproportionate chance of marrying someone from North Dakota.

However, the North Dakotans have a slightly higher penchant for marrying Minnesotans, as do those from Wisconsin.

Likewise, Mississippi is the soul state for those born in Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama.

The Time magazine article is available here.

 

Starting an Interstate Custody Case

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Actor David Schwimmer, and his wife Zoe Buckman, announced they plan to take some time apart. David is American, Zoe is British, they relocated to California, and their daughter was born in New York. Where would they start an interstate custody case?

The Schwimmers

The Friends star, Schwimmer aged 50, is married to London-born artist, Buckman aged 31. They share one child together, a daughter named Cleo who is about 5.

The couple, who have been together for 10 years, said that during this time their family is still their main priority, and also stating their full attention will be on the happiness of their daughter.

In a statement released to Mirror Online on Wednesday, the Friends star confirmed that they will spend a period of time trying to “determine the future” of their relationship.

Interstate Custody

I’ve written about interstate custody cases before. Generally, when two parents reside in Florida, Florida custody laws will apply. However, when one of the parents and the child move across state lines, you have an interstate custody problem.

But, which law applies? Historically, family law is a matter of state rather than federal law. So, you would look to the state law of Florida, for example, in deciding an interstate case; not Federal law. As will be seen below, there are some conflicts with different state laws.

For various reasons, people travel more. As a result, family law has to take on an interstate, and international component. Accordingly, the conflicts between states can be amplified.

To help with confusion between between different laws in different American states, the Uniform Law Commission is tasked with drafting laws on various subjects that attempt to bring uniformity across American state lines.

With respect to family law, different American states had adopted different approaches to issues related to interstate custody, visitation, and time-sharing. The results were that different states had conflicting resolutions to the same problems.

To seek harmony in this area, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA), which Florida and almost all U.S. states passed into law.

The UCCJEA: Initial Actions

The most fundamental aspect of the UCCJEA is the approach to the jurisdiction needed to start a case. In part, the UCCJEA requires a court have some jurisdiction vis-a-vis the child.

That jurisdiction is based on where the child is, and the significant connections the child has with the forum state, let’s say Florida for this example.

The ultimate determining factor in a Florida case then, is what is the “home state” of the child.

Florida has initial jurisdiction to hear the Schwimmer case, for example, if Florida is the Home State of their daughter Chloe on the date they start their case.

Alternatively, Florida can hear the case if Florida was the Home State of Chloe within 6-months before they filed their case, and Chloe is absent from Florida, but one of the parents still lives in Florida. This usually happens when a parent takes a child across state lines.

There is a good reason for the ‘home state’ approach under the UCCJEA, which has been adopted by most state laws. That is that Florida – and the other states – all have a strong public policy interest in protecting children in their states.

The Schwimmer’s divorce announcement went on to read:

“It is with great love, respect and friendship that we have decided to take some time apart while we determine the future of our relationship,” the said in a joint statement.

The U.K. Mirror article is here.

 

Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, international marriages are rising. Child custody issues are complex under normal circumstances. If the parents move to different countries, those interstate custody problems can multiply.

The U.S. Census Bureau report on the increase in international marriages is not really a surprise given our increasingly mobile and global society. The uptick in cross-border relationships has also led to an increase in international child custody disputes.

International & Interstate Custody

I’ve written about international and interstate custody cases before. You may find yourself in this situation right now, or you fear that your ex partner or soon to be ex could take your children out of the country against your will.

There are various laws and statues you should know about which can protect you and your children, and possibly help you resolve an international custody battle quickly and safely.

Consult a family law attorney with experience resolving international child custody cases. He or she will be able to represent your interests across international borders and help to ensure fair and timely court proceedings.

In some cases, an experienced attorney can also help determine where your ex currently lives and proactively negotiate to secure the prompt, voluntary, and safe return of your children.

The Hague Convention

Become familiar with the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, also known as the Hague Convention. This international treaty exists to protect children from international abductions by requiring their prompt return to their habitual residence.

The Hague Convention applies only in jurisdictions that have signed the convention, and its reach is limited to children ages 16 and under. Essentially, the Hague Convention helps families more quickly revert back to the “status quo” child custody arrangement before an unlawful child abduction.

If your ex has taken your children out of the country against your will, the Hague Convention can help you get them back as it is best used as a “return mechanism” to take wrongfully abducted or retained children.

Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act

Most U.S. states, including Florida, have adopted the UCAPA. The UCAPA offers protections to parents who are concerned about the possibility of custody-related parental abduction. If you already have a child custody order in place, or you have a custody hearing coming up, you may be able to file a petition under the UCAPA to address your specific concerns.

There are several risk factors that you should be aware of to determine if there should be put in place prevention measures for abduction. Prevention measures can include things like: orders not to remove a child from the court’s jurisdiction and the ability to require a bond or other security as a deterrent to abduction.

Foreign Courts

In addition to the local and international treaties and laws, it is important to understand the cultural and/or religious beliefs that could impact your case. Countries can have religious courts, and customs, which can drive the outcome of your case.

For example, some international jurisdictions may have a preference for granting sole physical custody mothers. However, judges in other countries are required to always grant custody to fathers. Knowing about these issues up front can help you more effectively prepare for your case.

Florida law currently provides some preventative measures to deter domestic and international child abductions once a custody proceeding has begun, or there is a court order regarding custody or visitation.

The U.S. Census article is here.

 

Same Sex, Common Law Marriages

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Florida deems common law marriages void. What about a common law marriage from another state? In many same-sex relationships, which were not legal until recently, that is now an issue.

Groundbreaking New Case

In South Carolina, Debra Parks wanted to be treated the same as anybody else. She wanted her relationship, which ended last year, to be considered a common-law marriage under South Carolina law. Parks is gay. But until 2014, same-sex marriage was illegal.

In a groundbreaking case for South Carolina, a Family Court judge has ruled that Parks and her former partner had a common-law marriage under state law. And the state must recognize that their common-law marriage has been legal for almost 30 years, the judge ruled.

The ruling means same-sex couples now have the same retroactive rights as heterosexual married couples, experts say. Those rights include alimony, health insurance, taxes, the division of property and others.

I’ve written about same-sex relationships before. The South Carolina ruling immediately becomes a legal precedent, and has the potential to impact thousands of people in same sex relationships because it backdates the period of effect to the beginning of the common-law marriage.

‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,’” the judge wrote. “The law established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell should be applied retroactively in South Carolina.”

Florida Common Law Marriages

South Carolina is one of eight states that recognize common law marriage. The case is important because same sex marriages were not recognized until 2014 and left an entire group of people “out in the cold” without the protections the law provides to heterosexual couples.

Florida law is different. No common-law marriage entered into after January 1, 1968, is valid in Florida.

The South Carolina case could create a conflict between Florida Statutes – which makes common law marriages in Florida void as of 1968, the Parks case, which recognizes the creation of same-sex, common law marriages in South Carolina.

The order states that Parks’ common law marriage is retroactive to the time when Parks divorced her husband while already living with her same sex partner. The larger question for interstate actions is whether Florida would give full faith and credit to the South Carolina judgment.

Interstate Problems

The generally established principle is that the validity of a marriage is determined by the law of the place where the marriage occurred. So, while Florida no longer recognizes common law marriages, nevertheless, it may to recognize the validity of common law marriages in other states.

Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to recognize same sex marriage, everything else from the marriage follows including rights of the parties, including marital property, alimony, divorce, and anything else. The rights and duties of marriage now apply to same sex couples.

The South Carolina Herald article is here.

Scarlett Johansson’s Divorce & Interstate Custody

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Scarlett Johansson filed for divorce in New York this week, and is asking for custody of their daughter. Her husband, Romain Dauriac, also wants custody, but lives in France. This creates an interstate custody issue.

For many reasons, a new job, a new love interest, family, it is common for parents to move after separating. If they have children, they want to bring them too. If they want to live out of state or the country, that makes it an interstate custody case.

The Interstate Custody Problem

According to US Weekly, Scarlett’s husband Romain plans to fight for custody of their daughter, which could set up an ugly court battle. He’s French and his attorney states his client plans to move back to France:

He would like to move to France with his daughter and Ms. Johansson does a lot of traveling, it will be an interesting process.

I’ve written about interstate custody issues, and recently spoke on the subject. So, what laws govern, and where could Romain file for divorce and custody?

Interstate Custody Laws

Several laws govern where to file your interstate custody case. In a recent New York case, an appellate court had to reconcile two laws governing interstate custody: the UCCJEA and Hague Convention.

In the New York case, a husband, wife and child moved from Canada to New York. After about five months in New York, the mother took the child back to Canada without the father’s consent and she promptly filed for custody there.

The father filed his own custody action in New York, applied for the return of the child under the Hague Convention, and instituted a Hague Convention case in Canada.

The Canadian court ruled that the child had been “habitually resident” in New York on the day that she was taken back to Canada, and ordered that the mother return the child to New York.

The mother brought the child back to New York but asked New York to dismiss the New York case because New York was not the “home state” of the child under the UCCJEA.

The “home state” is generally defined under the UCCJEA as “the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.

The mother claimed that the child had been in New York for only five months before being taken back to Canada.

The New York court determined that the Mother’s stay in Canada was only a “period of temporary absence”, and added it to the prior five months to constitute the required six-month period.

Additionally, the New York court noted that even if the six-month rule had not been satisfied, New York had initial custody jurisdiction because Canada declined the case.

The US Magazine article on the Scarlett Johansson divorce can be found here.