Minnesota: Court of appeals sides with mother on international child custody case

Minnesota: Court of appeals sides with mother on international child custody case Moyne v. Moyne, N.W. 2d (2014 WL1875905) Facts: Fabrice Jacques-Pierre Moyne (Father) and Shandin Cowle Moyne (Mother) married in Dece;mber of 2003, and later parented two children. They lived together in Eagan, Minnesota until Father moved with the two minor children to France in October 2010. Mother filed for dissolution action in Minnesota on September 20, 2011, the children still living with her at his point. Father followed with filing a dissolution action in France during Decmeber 2011. On December 20, 2011, Mother filed and ex parte motion for custody of their two children in Minnesota, Father then moved to dismiss arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction over this case. The district court found that it did have jurisdiction and ordered joint custody temporarily. The Minnesota district court ended up in favor of Mother and awarded her full legal and physical custody and ordered Father to return the children to Minnesota. The court stated that Mother was the primary caregiver during the marriage and that she provided a stable home back in Minnesota. Issue: Father is arguing whether the Minnesota district court had jurisdiction over the case when him and his children were living in France. He is also fighting the fact that Mother was awarded full custody of the children. Rule of law: “Jurisdiction for dissolution, custody, and support each consider the time period from 180 days or six months prior to the commencement of the action” (Minn.Stat. § 518D.102(f) (2012)). Minnesota has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Minn.Stat. §§ 518D.101–.317 (2012), The UCCJEA is in place to determine where the child’s “home state” is. And according to the UCCJEA, the child’s home state was in Minnesota, therefor having jurisdiction over this child custody case. In reference to the fact that Mother was awarded full custody, Father chose not to participate in the proceeding for custody except to object to jurisdiction. It was also found that Mother was primary caretaker during the marriage and that Father has committed domestic abuse towards the mother during the marriage. Holding: This case was affirmed.