subject: Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Divorce Judgment Modification Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] MOLLIE DIANE PEDDAR vs. JOHN LEONARD PEDDAR
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
April 11, 1997, Argued
July 22, 1997, Decided
In 1990, the plaintiff moved to Massachusetts withthe children of the marriage, and they now reside within the Commonwealth. In 1995, the plaintiff filed a complaint for modification of the Georgia divorce judgment pursuant to G. L. c. 208, 29. Her complaint seeks, inter alia, modifications to the orders of the Georgia Superior Court regarding child support. The judge dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, so much of the complaint as related to the child support orders. The plaintiff filed a timely appeal from the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Issues:
Whether a Massachusetts court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant regarding child support orders?
Whether a Massachusetts court having the jurisdictional power over the defendant under the uniform act?
Prior to the enactment of M.G.L.A. c. 209D it was possible for Massachusetts and other jurisdictions to have jurisdiction over the same child support matter. . . . The uniform act attempts to resolve the multiple jurisdiction problems by providing for one forum to have continuing and exclusive jurisdiction to establish or modify a child support order. Thus, under the sections quoted below, if only one tribunal has issued a valid child support order, that tribunal has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of the subject matter, and its jurisdiction must be recognized by other States. This Court concludes that Georgia, being the only State that has issued a child support order in this matter, is entitled to exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parties regarding child support orders.
Since the court concluded that Massachusetts may not modify the Georgia Support order, Massachusetts law is entirely consistent with the objectives of the federal program, and the Federal act does not, because it need not, preempt Massachusetts law. The order allowing the defendant's motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint related to child support is affirmed. The order denying the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is affirmed. The defendant's request for costs andattorney's fees is denied.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
