Young v. Young

Young v. Young

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Lara Young,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

David Young,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040227-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 3, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 100

 

-----

Third District, Silver Summit Department

The Honorable Bruce C. Lubeck

Attorneys: David Young, Park City, Appellant Pro Se

Nancy A. Mismash and Kevin M. McDonough, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    David Young appeals the trial court's order declining to exercise its jurisdiction and finding Utah to be an inconvenient forum under the Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

    The Utah trial court had continuing jurisdiction over child custody matters because it was the court that originally entered the divorce decree and custody order. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-45c-202 (2002). After the entry of the initial custody order, however, the wife and child moved from Utah and have not lived in Utah since 1999. The child has lived in Washington since 2002. Because the child lives outside of Utah, the Utah trial court with continuing jurisdiction may choose not to exercise its jurisdiction over child custody matters if it finds Utah to be an inconvenient forum for the proceeding. See id. § 78-45c-202(2).

    A Utah trial court "may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum." Id. § 78-45c-207(1) (2002). In determining whether another court may be a more appropriate forum, a Utah trial court "shall allow the parties to submit information" and must consider factors including the length of time the child has resided outside of Utah, the distance between the Utah court and the proposed forum court, the financial circumstances of the parties, the nature and location of evidence required to resolve the issues, and the ability of the court in each state to determine the issues expeditiously. Id. § 78-45c-207(2). If a Utah trial court determines that Utah is an inconvenient forum and another state is a more appropriate forum to determine the issues, the Utah court "shall stay the proceedings," pending resolution in the other state's court. Id. § 78-45c-207(3).

    In addition, to evaluate which court may be the more appropriate forum, a Utah trial court "may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding" under the UCCJEA. Id. § 78-45c-110(1) (2002). The trial court need not allow the parties to participate in the conference between the courts. See id. § 78-45c-110(2). However, the trial court must give the parties an opportunity to present facts and argument regarding jurisdiction prior to the court's determination of whether to exercise its jurisdiction. See id.

    In its order, the Utah trial court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and found Utah to be an inconvenient forum for the proceeding. It found that the more appropriate forum would be the Washington court, based on, among other things, the location of the evidence regarding the child's care, personal relationships, and schooling; the distance between the courts; and the length of time the child had resided outside of Utah. The trial court conferenced with the Washington court and gave the parties the opportunity to address jurisdiction issues in a hearing. The court properly determined that Utah was an inconvenient forum and that the proceeding should move forward in Washington.

    Young has not shown that the trial court erred in its determination. His arguments for the most part are irrelevant to the court's findings of fact or its legal conclusion. He has failed to show any of the factual findings are clearly erroneous. Nor has he demonstrated any legal error. The trial court acted within its statutory authority and considered required factors in determining the appropriate forum for the custody proceeding.

Accordingly, the trial court's order is affirmed.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge