## Facts

- Carl L. Myrland and Heather L. Myrland married in Montana and had one minor child, A.N.M.
- The family moved to North Carolina for work; the child lived at various times in North Carolina and Montana.
- Heather left Carl and the child, later relocating out of state and ultimately to Texas; Carl and A.N.M. returned to and lived in Montana.
- After an extended period of no contact, Heather took A.N.M. during an alleged birthday visit and did not return the child.
- Heather filed for divorce and custody in Texas on May 26, 2006, after meeting Texas’s domicile requirement.
- Carl filed for dissolution and a parenting plan in Montana on October 2, 2006, alleging he did not know Heather’s location.
- A Montana district court entered a default decree of dissolution incorporating a parenting plan favorable to Carl.
- Heather moved to set aside the Montana decree, asserting Montana lacked child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that Texas was the child’s home state.
- The district court set aside the default decree and parenting plan and dismissed Carl’s Montana proceeding in favor of Texas.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by setting aside the default decree of dissolution and declining to proceed with dissolution in Montana.
2. Whether Montana lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination and parenting plan under the UCCJEA.
3. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the custody case in favor of Texas without conducting the UCCJEA inconvenient-forum analysis.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the order setting aside the default decree of dissolution.
- The Court reversed the determination that Montana lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over child custody and the parenting plan.
- The Court remanded for the district court to decide whether to decline custody jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under the UCCJEA and to coordinate as appropriate with the Texas court.

## Legal Principles

- Jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage and jurisdiction to decide child custody are distinct; a dissolution decree may include a parenting plan only if custody jurisdiction exists.
- Under the UCCJEA, “home state” status turns on where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement of the first child-custody proceeding.
- A court with UCCJEA jurisdiction may decline to exercise it only after considering the statutory inconvenient-forum factors; a conclusory dismissal without that analysis is error.
- A district court has discretion to set aside a default dissolution decree where parallel proceedings and unresolved jurisdictional concerns justify relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld vacatur of the default dissolution decree but held Montana was the child’s UCCJEA home state and therefore had initial custody jurisdiction; it returned the case for a factor-based inconvenient-forum determination rather than an outright dismissal in favor of Texas.


In re Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286, 359 Mont. 1, 248 P.3d 290 (Mont. 2010)