This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Petitioner and Respondent, who were never married, had a child in 2004. Both were professional bowlers who traveled extensively for tournaments, living in a fifth-wheel trailer. Their pattern involved residing in Cooksville, Illinois, during the off-season and traveling to various states for tournaments. In 2008, they stayed in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from January to July for a tournament. The Respondent and child returned to Illinois in July 2008, ending the relationship. The Petitioner sought custody, time-sharing, and child support in New Mexico, claiming it as the child’s home state.
Procedural History
- District Court, January 28, 2009: The court adopted the hearing officer’s findings, concluding that New Mexico lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) as it was not the child’s home state. Illinois was deemed the more appropriate forum.
- District Court, February 9, 2009: The court denied the Petitioner’s emergency motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its jurisdictional determination.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner: Argued that New Mexico was the child’s home state under the UCCJEA, as the child resided there for six months in 2008. Claimed the Respondent’s relocation to Illinois constituted parental kidnapping. Asserted that the Illinois court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction left him without a forum to pursue custody.
- Respondent: Contended that New Mexico was not the child’s home state due to the temporary nature of their stay and that Illinois had the most significant connections to the child. Opposed the Petitioner’s claims of parental kidnapping and argued that Illinois was the appropriate forum.
Legal Issues
- Whether New Mexico had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to determine child custody.
- Whether the Respondent’s relocation to Illinois constituted parental kidnapping.
- Whether the Petitioner was left without a forum to pursue custody due to the Illinois court’s actions.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision that New Mexico lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that Illinois was the more appropriate forum.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Castillo and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The court found that New Mexico was not the child’s home state under the UCCJEA because the child did not reside there for six consecutive months. The temporary nature of the family’s stay in Albuquerque, as part of their annual travel pattern, precluded establishing home state jurisdiction. Illinois was deemed the more appropriate forum due to the family’s significant connections there, including their seasonal residence, vehicle registration, and receipt of mail.
The court rejected the Petitioner’s claim of parental kidnapping, noting that he failed to present arguments under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act or relevant state statutes. The court also dismissed the argument that the Illinois court’s actions left him without a forum, as the Illinois court had not refused jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
The district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony about the family’s travel patterns and residency. The court acted within its discretion in adopting the hearing officer’s recommendations and modifying factual findings where necessary.