## Facts

- A Maryland court entered a 2006 child custody order awarding joint custody of C.B. after George and Christine Brandt divorced.
- Christine later joined the U.S. Army, moved with C.B. to Texas, and was deployed to Iraq in 2010.
- During Christine’s deployment, C.B. lived with George in Colorado pursuant to the parties’ agreement.
- Christine returned to Texas in 2010 and was later ordered by the Army to complete active-duty service in Maryland.
- Despite time in Texas and Iraq, Christine maintained substantial Maryland ties, including a home, driver’s license, nursing license, and voter registration.
- George filed in Colorado to register the Maryland order and to have Colorado assume jurisdiction to modify it under the UCCJEA.
- The Colorado district court registered the order and assumed modification jurisdiction, finding neither parent nor the child “currently resided” in Maryland.
- Christine sought relief in the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21, challenging Colorado’s assumption of modification jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Under the UCCJEA, what does “presently reside” mean when determining whether the issuing state has lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over a custody order?
2. Did the Colorado district court err by treating “presently reside” as equivalent to current physical presence and, on that basis, assuming jurisdiction to modify a Maryland custody order?
3. Who bears the burden to show that the issuing state has lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA?

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court made its rule absolute, reversed and vacated the district court’s order assuming modification jurisdiction, and remanded.
- The district court applied the wrong legal standard by equating “presently reside” with “currently reside” and physical presence.
- The correct inquiry is a domicile-like, totality-of-the-circumstances assessment of whether the parties have truly left the issuing state as their permanent home.
- The party asserting loss of the issuing state’s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction bears the burden of proof.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, the issuing state retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction until statutory conditions are met; until then, another state may enforce but may not modify the custody order.
- “Presently reside” is not synonymous with “currently reside” or physical presence.
- Determining whether parents and child no longer “presently reside” in the issuing state requires a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry informed by domicile-type considerations, including intent, maintenance of a home, and continuing legal and civic ties.
- Temporary absences, including military assignments or deployments, do not by themselves show that a parent has ceased to “presently reside” in the issuing state.
- The burden of establishing that the issuing state has lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction rests on the party seeking modification jurisdiction in the new forum.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court held that a court may not assume UCCJEA modification jurisdiction based solely on where the parties are physically located; “presently reside” requires a domicile-oriented, totality-of-the-circumstances determination, and because the district court used an incorrect standard, its order assuming jurisdiction to modify the Maryland custody decree was vacated and the matter remanded.


In re Marriage of Brandt, 268 P.3d 406 (Colo. 2012)