## Facts

- Matthew A. Scott (father) and Jacklyn A. Somers (mother) are the unmarried parents of a child born in New Haven, Connecticut, on July 19, 1999.
- The parents and child lived in Connecticut until February or March 2001, when they moved to Melbourne, Florida.
- On November 19, 2002, a Florida court determined Florida was the child’s home state and granted Somers temporary primary custody, with visitation rights to Scott.
- A dispute later arose about how and why the child came to be in Connecticut, including allegations of wrongful retention.
- On August 31, 2004, Scott filed a custody action in Connecticut Superior Court, alleging the child had lived with him in Connecticut since May 2003 and that Connecticut had significant-connection and evidence-based jurisdiction; he disclosed the prior Florida proceeding and temporary order.
- On October 24, 2004, the Connecticut court held a telephone conference with the Florida court to discuss jurisdiction; the courts did not agree on which state had jurisdiction.
- Despite the unresolved jurisdictional conflict, the Connecticut court retained jurisdiction, held a final hearing, and awarded Scott sole legal and physical custody with visitation to Somers.
- Around the same time, the Florida court concluded it had jurisdiction and awarded Somers primary residential custody, resulting in conflicting interstate custody orders.

## Issues

1. Whether Connecticut could exercise jurisdiction to enter a custody order when Florida had previously issued a home-state custody determination.
2. Whether the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, barred Connecticut from modifying Florida’s custody determination absent a showing that Florida no longer had jurisdiction or had declined jurisdiction.
3. Whether reliance on the UCCJEA factors alone was sufficient to support Connecticut’s custody judgment in an interstate dispute.

## Decision

- The Appellate Court reversed the Connecticut trial court’s custody judgment.
- It held Connecticut lacked authority to modify Florida’s custody determination because the trial court failed to apply the PKPA’s limits on modification and failed to establish that Florida had lost or declined jurisdiction.
- The case was remanded consistent with the requirement that Connecticut defer to Florida’s continuing jurisdiction unless Florida relinquishes it under the PKPA.

## Legal Principles

- In interstate custody disputes, the PKPA imposes federal full-faith-and-credit requirements that control over inconsistent applications of state custody-jurisdiction statutes.
- A state must enforce, and may not modify, another state’s custody determination made consistently with the PKPA while the issuing state retains continuing jurisdiction.
- A second state may modify a sister-state custody order only if the issuing state no longer has jurisdiction under the PKPA or has declined to exercise jurisdiction.
- A court applying the UCCJEA must still assess the issuing state’s continuing jurisdiction and any declination under the PKPA before entering a conflicting custody order.

## Conclusion

Connecticut’s custody judgment was invalid because Florida had entered a home-state custody determination and retained continuing jurisdiction under the PKPA; without proof that Florida lacked or declined jurisdiction, Connecticut could not lawfully modify Florida’s order.


Scott v. Somers, 97 Conn. App. 46, 903 A.2d 663 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)