## Facts

- Caroline Siderius and Kenneth Fordham lived together in Alabama with their two minor children, then moved with the children to Oregon in 2009 and to Washington in March 2010.
- The family lived in Washington for about 17 months before any custody litigation began.
- In May 2011, the parents used a mediator to develop parenting plans, including an agreement that the children would spend summer 2011 with Fordham in Alabama and return to Washington before school started; Siderius bought return plane tickets.
- During the summer visit, Fordham re-registered the children in a Mobile, Alabama school and filed in Alabama for divorce and custody with an emergency motion for immediate custody.
- The Alabama trial court granted Fordham an ex parte pendente lite custody order.
- Siderius filed in Washington for dissolution and custody; the Washington court entered ex parte restraining relief requiring return of the children and coordinated with the Alabama court by telephone under the UCCJEA.
- The Washington court later entered a custody order awarding Siderius custody, finding Washington was the children’s home state under the UCCJEA, and holding Fordham in contempt for not returning the children.
- Siderius registered the Washington custody determination in Alabama and sought enforcement; the Alabama trial court refused to enforce it and continued the Alabama custody proceeding.
- After the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals denied mandamus without opinion, Siderius petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for mandamus directing enforcement of the Washington order and dismissal of the competing Alabama custody case.

## Issues

1. Which state was the children’s “home state” for initial child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA at the time the Alabama custody proceeding commenced.
2. Whether an Alabama court could exercise custody jurisdiction when Washington, as the asserted home state, had exercised jurisdiction and issued a custody order.
3. Whether Alabama was required under the UCCJEA to recognize, register, and enforce the Washington custody determination and to refrain from issuing inconsistent custody orders.
4. Whether mandamus was an appropriate remedy to correct the Alabama trial court’s refusal to defer under the UCCJEA.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of mandamus.
- The Court held Washington was the children’s UCCJEA home state when Fordham filed in Alabama because the children had lived in Washington with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately preceding commencement.
- The Court held the Alabama trial court lacked authority to make an initial custody determination inconsistent with Washington’s home-state jurisdiction and custody determination.
- The Court directed the Alabama trial court to enforce the Washington custody order, vacate conflicting Alabama custody orders, and dismiss the Alabama custody proceeding to the extent it sought a competing custody determination.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, “home state” jurisdiction (six consecutive months of residence with a parent immediately before commencement) controls initial child-custody jurisdiction unless the home state declines jurisdiction or a statutory exception applies.
- Child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is a subject-matter allocation and is not established by personal-jurisdiction concepts such as “minimum contacts.”
- When another state has properly exercised UCCJEA jurisdiction and issued a custody determination, other states must generally decline competing jurisdiction and must enforce the out-of-state custody determination upon proper registration, absent a valid statutory basis to refuse enforcement.
- Mandamus may issue to correct a trial court’s clear legal error in exercising custody jurisdiction contrary to the UCCJEA when prompt relief is necessary and an appeal is not an adequate remedy.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court required Alabama courts to follow the UCCJEA’s home-state framework, holding that Washington had priority jurisdiction and that Alabama had to enforce Washington’s custody determination while ending its competing custody proceeding and orders.


Ex parte Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013)