Court determined the “home state” under UCCJEA. M.G. v. C.M. 61 N.Y.S.3d 191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a legal framework adopted by most states in the United States to provide clarity and consistency in child custody jurisdiction matters across state lines. It aims to prevent jurisdictional disputes and forum shopping, ensuring that custody determinations are made in the state that is most appropriate and connected to the child and the family.

Under the UCCJEA, the concept of “home state” is crucial in determining which state has jurisdiction over child custody matters. The “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent (or a person acting as a parent) for a consecutive six-month period immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. If the child is less than six months old, the “home state” is the state where the child has lived since birth.

When multiple states are involved in a custody dispute, the UCCJEA provides guidelines for determining which state has jurisdiction. Generally, the state that qualifies as the child’s “home state” will have primary jurisdiction over custody matters. However, if no state meets the criteria of being the child’s “home state,” the UCCJEA outlines other bases for jurisdiction, such as significant connections with the child or the child’s family, emergency circumstances, or whether no other state has jurisdiction.

Background Facts
In M.G. v. C.M. 61 N.Y.S.3d 191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017), the parties, married in 2014, have a daughter born in New York in 2016. The father moved to New Mexico in July 2016, while the mother and daughter stayed in New York until October 2016, when they joined him. They resided in New Mexico until March 2017 when the mother returned to New York with the child. In total, they lived in New Mexico for five months and five days. The child traveled from New York to New Mexico in October 2016 and returned in March 2017. The dispute centers on whether New York or New Mexico qualifies as the child’s “home state” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Both parents argue their respective states as the “home state” in their petitions, leading to the primary issue before the court. Other details presented by the parties, while relevant to other aspects of the case, do not directly address this central issue.

Issue
Whether New York has jurisdiction over the matter.

Holding
The court held that the plaintiff-mother failed to establish New York as the child’s “home state” or demonstrate a significant connection to New York under the “substantial connection” provision, as the plaintiff-mother’s time in New Mexico was not deemed a temporary absence, as required by the statute, and her subsequent actions and sworn statements indicated a clear intent to establish legal residence in New Mexico, thus rejecting her claim that New York had jurisdiction over the custody matter.

Discussion
The court’s reasoning for its decision was based on several factors. First, it found that the plaintiff-mother’s time in New Mexico was not a temporary absence as contemplated by the statute, but rather an intentional relocation with extensive connections established in New Mexico, as evidenced by her sworn statement on her nursing license application and various affirmative acts. Additionally, the court emphasized that the child did not have significant connections to New York, considering factors such as pediatric appointments and lack of enrollment in daycare or other activities during the brief period in New York. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff-mother’s reliance on her relationship with her maternal grandmother in Florida was irrelevant to establishing significant connections to New York.