Does a Montana court have UCCJEA jurisdiction to order a parenting plan over a Montana child after the wrongful removal of a child to another country if a parent delays more than a year after trying to legally return the child? The Supreme Court of Montana just addressed that international child custody question.

UCCJEA Montana 2

Little Trouble in Big Sky Country

In 2020, the parties and child moved from Colorado to Montana. Beginning in June 2022 until May 2023, the child resided and attended public school in the Netherlands. But then in May 2023, the child and Mother returned to Montana so the Mother could reconcile with the Father.

On August 11, 2023, the Mother abducted the child without the knowledge or consent of the Father, and returned to the Netherlands. On February 13, 2024, the Mother filed a divorce and custody petition in the Netherlands.

On January 17, 2025, the Father filed a petition to return the child to the USA in a Dutch Court, using the Hague Abduction Convention. His petition was denied, with a conclusion that it was filed more than one year from the wrongful removal, and the child was now settled in the Netherlands.

However, the Dutch court also found that the Mother’s removal of the child from Montana was wrongful, meaning the United States was the child’s “habitual residence”.

The Father’s appeal in the Dutch courts was dismissed. In September of 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (Montana District Court).

The Montana District Court dismissed Father’s petition and motion based on its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague and that Montana is no longer the “home state” of the child since she had not resided in Montana for more than two years before Father filed this action in Montana.

Father filed his notice of appeal of the Montana District Court’s order with this Court in early October.

Florida UCCJEA

I have written about international child custody issues before. The UCCJEA is a uniform act drafted to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with other state courts in child custody matters; promote cooperation with other courts; ensure 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 custody issues.

Montana and almost all U.S. states passed the UCCJEA into law. 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 Montana. The ultimate determining factor in a Montana case then, is what is the “home state” of the child.

In Florida, the “home state” of a child means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child younger than 6 months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.

Back to Dutton Ranch?

Relying on the UCCJEA, the Montana Supreme Court found under the UCCJEA, priority is given to “home-state jurisdiction for child custody proceedings, under which a state has jurisdiction if it is the child’s ‘home state.’”

A child’s “home state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”
Here, Montana was no longer the child’s “home state” as defined by the UCCJEA. Father filed his petition and motion for emergency custody in early September 2025, nearly 25 months after the child was last in Montana.

Father did not file a Hague petition for the return of the child until approximately a year and a half after the child was wrongfully removed from the United States. It is unclear why Father delayed filing a Hague petition for so long.

However, the Netherlands District Court suggests that the parties were negotiating travel and parenting arrangements for the child uring this time. Nonetheless, during that delay the child became settled in her new environment in the Netherlands as the District Court of The Hague concluded and the Court of Appeal of The Hague affirmed.

Montana lost home-state jurisdiction since she had not resided here for the preceding six months before Father filed for custody in the Montana UCCJEA. Under ordinary circumstances Montana courts should treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purposes of applying the UCCJEA according to the plain language of the statute.

Finally, the Father failed to point to any legal authority whereby a finding that a child was wrongfully taken from her place of habitual residence, yet now settled in her new environment, overrides a judgment of another jurisdiction that it may properly exercise child custody jurisdiction.

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the Montana District Court and concluded the Father must pursue his parenting interests in the Netherlands District Court because he waited approximately a year and a half before taking legal action to return his child to Montana, and as a result Montana lost child custody jurisdiction.

The opinion is available here.

A Thrill in Brazil

The child, G.O. was born in September 2020, and lived with his parents in Pennsylvania until April 2021. Then, just before G.O. turned six months old, the parents took their child to Brazil in May 2021 for a one month vacation to see the Mother’s family.

The Father returned to the U.S, but the Mother refused to return with the child, and remained in Brazil with G.O. In July 2021, the Father filed an Emergency Petition to return G.O. from Brazil in Philadelphia. The Mother argued that she had filed for custody in Brazil.

In January 2022, the Mother filed an Emergency Petition for Custody in Pennsylvania, where they used to live, but the Father had moved to New Jersey, and had been residing there for over four months. The Pennsylvania court ruled in December 2024 that Pennsylvania no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to consider custody. The Father appealed.

Florida International Custody

I’ve written and spoken about international child custody cases under the Hague Convention and the UCCJEA before. The Hague Convention seeks to deter abducting parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

When a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another signatory country, the Hague Convention provides that the other country: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Florida and almost all U.S. states passed the UCCJEA into law. 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.

Another important aspect of the UCCJEA is the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction. Under the UCCJEA, the state originally making a custody determination retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until it determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer have a significant connection with the state, or until any state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the decree-granting state.

Fulfilled in Brazil

On appeal, the Father argued the trial court erred when it divested itself of jurisdiction without properly considering its own prior orders affirming jurisdiction, and by disregarding the Brazilian court’s Hague Convention ruling, which determined that the U.S. is the habitual residence and the Mother’s retention in Brazil unlawful.

The purpose of the UCCJEA, the appellate court noted, is to avoid jurisdictional competition, promote cooperation between courts, deter child abductions and facilitate the enforcement of custody orders of other states.

Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is based on the home state of the child, where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody case. When a child is six months of age or younger, home state means the state in which the child lived from birth with a parent.

Here, having found the Pennsylvania court was the home state and properly had jurisdiction, the question became did Pennsylvania lose exclusive continuing jurisdiction when the Mother, child and Father had all left the state.

However, the family court incorrectly held that Brazil had not determined a court of the United States would be the more appropriate forum. In fact, the Brazilian found that the U.S. courts were the more appropriate forum for deciding custody than Brazil.

Additionally, even if Brazil had home state jurisdiction to decide custody, under the Hague Convention, the courts in Brazil are not permitted to decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child should not be returned under the Convention.

Finally, if Pennsylvania had allowed the Mother to wrongfully retain G.O. in Brazil to create exclusive jurisdiction, the appellate court reasoned it would be rewarding the Mother for forum shopping and unjustified behavior.

The opinion is here.

Tag: uccjea home state

UCCJEA and Wrongful Removal