## Facts

- Julie Alison Castro and Crescencio Castro met in Illinois and married in June 2009.
- During a separation in the fall of 2009, Julie learned she was pregnant with the couple’s child.
- The couple briefly reunited, but separated again in November 2010.
- After the November 2010 separation, Julie moved from Illinois to North Dakota.
- The child was born in North Dakota, and Julie and the child remained in North Dakota after the birth.
- In June 2011, Crescencio filed a divorce action in Illinois.
- In September 2011, Julie filed an action in North Dakota district court seeking primary residential responsibility and decision-making authority for the child, alleging North Dakota was the child’s “home state” under North Dakota’s UCCJEA (N.D.C.C. ch. 14-14.1).
- Crescencio did not answer Julie’s North Dakota complaint.
- In October 2011, Julie moved for a default judgment (or interim relief).
- The North Dakota district court communicated by telephone with the Illinois court handling the divorce action.
- The North Dakota district court determined North Dakota was the child’s home state and had jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination, but dismissed Julie’s case without prejudice as an inconvenient forum because Crescencio was seeking only visitation in the Illinois case.
- Julie appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the North Dakota district court misapplied the UCCJEA by dismissing a home-state custody proceeding as an inconvenient forum based largely on the existence of an Illinois divorce action where the father sought only visitation.
2. Whether a request for visitation is part of a “child custody determination” subject to the UCCJEA’s jurisdiction and forum provisions.
3. Whether the district court was required to apply the UCCJEA’s inconvenient-forum factors before declining to exercise home-state jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the order dismissing the North Dakota custody proceeding and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the district court misapplied the law governing the exercise of jurisdiction in an interstate custody case under the UCCJEA.
- The court rejected the approach of treating the dispute as “only visitation” and thereby dismissing without a proper inconvenient-forum analysis.
- The court directed that any decision to decline jurisdiction must follow the UCCJEA’s statutory inconvenient-forum framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, the child’s “home state” has priority to make an initial child-custody determination, including determinations involving visitation.
- A visitation dispute is part of a “child custody determination” for UCCJEA purposes and is not outside the Act’s jurisdiction rules.
- A court with home-state jurisdiction may decline to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum only after considering the statutory factors in the UCCJEA’s inconvenient-forum provision (N.D.C.C. § 14-14.1-18) and making a reasoned determination under that framework.
- The existence of a pending proceeding in another state, standing alone, does not justify a home-state court’s refusal to hear an initial custody matter.
- Interstate court communication may occur under the UCCJEA, but communication does not replace the required statutory analysis when a court is deciding whether to keep or decline jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Because North Dakota was the child’s home state and the UCCJEA treats visitation as part of a child-custody determination, the district court erred by dismissing the North Dakota action as an inconvenient forum based mainly on the Illinois divorce case’s posture; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the district court to proceed under the UCCJEA’s required forum analysis.


Castro v. Castro, 818 N.W.2d 753 (2012)