## Facts

- A Texas divorce decree (1975) awarded primary custody of the parties’ daughter to the mother, with visitation for the father under a settlement agreement.
- After post-divorce moves and visitation disputes, the father retained the child during a Texas visit in 1976; the mother regained custody through a habeas corpus proceeding.
- An Oregon court (1977), in proceedings to enforce/modify the Texas decree, continued custody with the mother, adjusted visitation (including a bond requirement), awarded support arrears, and addressed contempt findings.
- During the child’s 1980 visit with the father in Texas, the father sought a Texas modification; a Texas court (Jan. 1981) issued an order awarding custody to the father and set a transfer date.
- The mother and child were living in Wyoming; the mother filed a Wyoming custody action (Feb. 1981).
- A Wyoming district court (Mar. 1982) restored primary custody to the mother, restricted the father’s visitation, and entered money judgments for past-due support and attorney’s fees.
- The father appealed, arguing Wyoming lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, had to honor the Texas order under full faith and credit/PKPA, lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and erred on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming had jurisdiction under its Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) to modify the Texas custody modification order.
2. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, required Wyoming to treat the Texas modification as controlling and barred Wyoming’s modification.
3. Whether Wyoming had personal jurisdiction over the father consistent with due process to enter custody-related orders and monetary judgments.
4. Whether the evidence supported modification based on a substantial change in circumstances and the child’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order.
- Wyoming had jurisdiction under its UCCJA because Wyoming was the child’s home state and had significant connections and substantial evidence concerning the child’s welfare.
- The PKPA did not preclude Wyoming’s modification because the Texas modification was not made consistently with PKPA jurisdictional requirements.
- The father was subject to personal jurisdiction, including because he waived a special appearance by seeking affirmative relief and otherwise participating.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in restoring custody to the mother, restricting visitation, and awarding support arrears and attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- A state may modify an out-of-state custody decree if it has jurisdiction under its custody-jurisdiction statute and modification is not barred by the PKPA.
- PKPA full faith and credit protection applies only to custody determinations made consistently with the PKPA’s jurisdictional predicates (including home-state and continuing-jurisdiction requirements).
- In analyzing modification jurisdiction, courts may apply a sequential inquiry: whether the prior decree state retains PKPA/UCCJA-type jurisdiction (or has declined), and whether the forum state independently satisfies its statutory jurisdictional grounds.
- Under UCCJA-style provisions, home-state jurisdiction (six months’ residence) and significant-connection/substantial-evidence jurisdiction can support a forum’s authority to decide custody.
- A party may waive objections to personal jurisdiction by requesting affirmative relief or otherwise submitting to the court; due process is satisfied where contacts and participation justify the forum’s exercise of jurisdiction.
- Custody modification requires a substantial change in circumstances and a best-interests determination; appellate review is deferential to the trial court’s fact-finding and discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Wyoming’s authority to modify a competing Texas custody modification because Wyoming satisfied UCCJA jurisdictional grounds and the Texas order lacked PKPA-compliant jurisdictional support, and it affirmed the custody, visitation, and monetary provisions based on proper personal jurisdiction and sufficient evidence of changed circumstances and the child’s best interests.


Quenzer v. Quenzer, 653 P.2d 295 (Wyo. 1982)