IMO Sheys and Blackburn: Can New Hampshire maintain jurisdiction over a child when it is no longer the home state?
The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued its opinion In the Matter of Mary Sheys and Eric Blackburn on July 15, 2015.
Mother and father married in 2005. They had two children during their marriage. When they divorced in New Hampshire in 2009, the parties agreed on a parenting plan providing mother with primary residential responsibility. Father exercised parenting time every other weekend, two afternoons per week and two weeks in the summer. In January 2013 mother told father she was relocating to Natick, Massachusetts with the children to take a new job after having been unemployed since November 2012. Mother moved the following month in February 2013. After the move, father filed in New Hampshire for primary residential responsibility and contempt. The 9th Circuit – Family Division – Manchester denied the father’s requested relief and entered a new parenting plan providing father with parenting time on alternating weekends, summers, school vacations and time in Natick as the father was available.
In December of 2013 father again asked the court to modify the parties’ parenting plan. Mother asked the court to dismiss the matter as she and the children had been residing in Massachusetts for over a year and she had already filed a motion in the Massachusetts Probate & Family Court to modify the parties’ divorce decree and parenting plan. The court granted mother’s motion to dismiss finding that it was appropriate for the court to decline continuing jurisdiction over this matter because mother and the children no longer had a significant connection with the State of New Hampshire.
The father appealed arguing that the trial court erred when it ruled that the children did not have a significant connection with New Hampshire
As a matter of first impression, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) New Hampshire had continuing exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the post-divorce parenting matters. The Court agreed with the majority of jurisdictions in finding a child has a “significant connection” with New Hampshire when one parent still resides in state and exercises more than de minimis parenting time in New Hampshire. The Court noted that although the mother asked the Court to affirm on the alternative grounds of inconvenient forum, this issue was never argued and the trial court never considered it.
This case provides clarification that New Hampshire will continue to hear parenting matters even after New Hampshire is no longer the “home state” of the child. The UCCJEA takes a broad view. The opinion notes that most states have determined that the “significant connection” requirement in the act can be met so long as the parent that remains in the state exercises some parenting time. For example, a Georgia court found a significant connection for parenting time that was exercised every other weekend and 8 weeks in the summer. Here, the Father exercised parenting time in New Hampshire on alternating weekends, two non-consecutive weeks in the summer, five days during April vacation in even years and five days during February vacation in odd years.
This holding may make it more difficult for a custodial parent to litigate from their new state. However, the Court left open the issue of whether New Hampshire may be an inconvenient forum under RSA 458-A:18. Custodial parents may still be able to transfer the case to their new state with an inconvenient forum argument.