subject: Maryland Baltimore County Minor Child Custody Ex-parte Order Another State Jurisdiction Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] MARY RODDY-DUNCAN v. THEODORE DUNCAN
COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND
FACTS:
Raushan Akil Murshid, appellee, failed to return his child after a visit and filed a complaint, pro se, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, seeking custody of his minor child. The complaint named Sisandra C. Lewis, appellant, as defendant and mother of the child. A Florida court ordered the father to return the child to the mother. Mother filed an answer to the complaint, a counter-complaint to enforce the foreign order for custody. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City (Maryland) dismissed the complaint and the counter-complaint. The mother appealed.
ISSUES:
The following is the issue that is required to be determined:
Whether a temporary and ex parte custody order issued by another state is entitled to recognition and enforcement in this state pursuant to FL 9-213 (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act), if it otherwise meets the requirements of law.
DISCUSSION:
The only arguable basis for jurisdiction over appellee's request for relief in the complaint is section 9-204(a)(2), which bases jurisdiction on a "significant connection" to the State. If that argument were made, it would fail, however, because accepting the allegations in the pleadings as true for purposes of review of the orderof dismissal; it appears that Florida meets the definition of home state. When a child has a home state, jurisdiction cannot be premised on the significant connection test in subsection (a)(2). Appellant, in her counter-complaint, did not seek an original or modified custody decree. Appellant sought recognition and enforcement of the Florida order granting her temporary custody. Section 9-213 provides in pertinent part that the courts of this State shall enforce an initial decree of a court of another state that was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of the UCCJA. Md. Code, Fam. Law 9-213. Accordingly, appellantwould be entitled to the relief sought if the Florida court properly assumed jurisdiction under the UCCJA, and there are no other bars to enforcement. Given the Florida court's proper assertion of "home state" jurisdiction over the child, the trial court's dismissal of appellant's counter-complaint would only be proper if there was some other reason, based on the pleadings, to suggest that the Florida decree did not merit recognition and enforcement in Maryland. While there are a variety of reasons why a court with the power to assert jurisdiction over a child custody case should or may decline to do so, there is nothing in the allegations set forth in the pleadings to support a determination by the trial court that the Florida court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction despite its "home state" status. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's counter-complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT:
Order dismissing counter-complaint reversed. Case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore city for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
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.
Maryland Baltimore County Minor Child Custody Ex-parte Order Another State Jurisdiction Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
