ILNews

Justices: Indiana OK to dismiss jurisdiction

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In an Indiana custody case that started before a married couple's only child was born, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that either Indiana or the state where the child was born could have jurisdiction over proceedings. The Indiana trial court dismissed proceedings in favor of Washington State, where the child was born, as a more convenient forum, clearing the way for that state to take over jurisdiction.

The issue in Anthony N. Stewart v. Signe L. (Stewart) Vulliet, No. 12S02-0708-CV-331, is whether Indiana could dismiss the child custody proceedings between Anthony Stewart and Signe Vulliet and allow Washington to take over the proceedings.

Stewart and Vulliet were married and lived in Washington before moving to Indiana. While Vulliet was pregnant and still living in Indiana, she filed for divorce and moved back to Washington after living in Indiana for only six months. Their daughter, A.S., was born in Washington in 2004 and for nearly two years, the Indiana trial court issued several orders pertaining to the child's custody.

In April 2006, Vulliet asked the Indiana court to dismiss custody and visitation issues, arguing Indiana was an inconvenient forum. The court granted the motion, even though it ruled she had waived her right to claim forum inconvenience, and decided Washington was better suited to resolve the dispute because it was the child's home state and it had a closer connection with the child and witnesses concerning the child's welfare.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision, ruling Indiana is a more convenient forum and Vulliet had waived any claim that Washington was the daughter's home state.

The Indiana Supreme Court examined the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law (UCCJL) to determine if Indiana ever had jurisdiction over the child. The provisions in the law dictate what happens only after a child is born, so the Supreme Court looked to other courts to determine what to do when cases are filed before a child is born.

The high court determined that both states could have jurisdiction over the child. Under Indiana Code, jurisdiction is conferred to Indiana if a child doesn't have a home state and it's in the best interest of the child for Indiana to assume jurisdiction. Before the child was born, she didn't have a home state, so it was justified for Indiana to have jurisdiction.

However, once the baby was born in Washington, that state became her home state and they had concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction to determine custody, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

"Despite that A.S., being unborn, did not have a home state nor close connections with the state of Washington when the proceeding was commenced, the trial court can still properly consider these factors when determining whether to dismiss the action for forum inconvenience because the UCCJL authorizes a court to decline exercising jurisdiction 'any time before making a decree,'" wrote Chief Justice Shepard.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT