## Facts

- Mr. and Ms. Snow are the parents of a minor child, S.
- The Snows divorced in North Dakota in 1995.
- The North Dakota judgment awarded Mr. Snow custody of S and granted Ms. Snow visitation rights.
- After the divorce, Mr. Snow moved to Oregon and left S in North Dakota with S’s paternal grandmother (Grandmother).
- In 1997, Grandmother and S moved to Oregon to join Mr. Snow.
- From 1995 to 2001, Grandmother served as S’s primary caretaker.
- In June 2001, after suspecting Mr. Snow had abused S, Grandmother took S to England to stay with a relative.
- In July 2001, Grandmother filed an Oregon petition seeking full custody of S.
- In her Oregon filing, Grandmother acknowledged the existing North Dakota custody order and that Ms. Snow still resided in North Dakota.
- Grandmother argued Oregon had jurisdiction because she, S, and Mr. Snow had lived in Oregon for several years and S had spent significant time there.
- Mr. Snow argued Oregon lacked jurisdiction because North Dakota issued the original custody determination and Ms. Snow continued to live in North Dakota.
- The Oregon trial court concluded North Dakota retained jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Grandmother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify North Dakota’s existing custody determination when the child and custodial parent had lived in Oregon for years, but the noncustodial parent remained a North Dakota resident and North Dakota had not relinquished jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
- The court held that North Dakota, as the state that entered the original custody decree, retained continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Ms. Snow still lived in North Dakota and North Dakota had not determined that it no longer had jurisdiction (or that Oregon should take the case).
- The court rejected the argument that Oregon could assume authority to modify the decree based only on the child’s and Grandmother’s extended presence in Oregon.
- To the extent Grandmother relied on concerns about abuse, the court explained that such concerns did not supply Oregon with authority to enter a permanent modification of an out-of-state custody order without meeting the UCCJEA’s modification requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, the state that made the initial child-custody determination generally keeps continuing, exclusive jurisdiction unless statutory conditions for loss or relinquishment of that jurisdiction are met.
- A court in a new state may not modify an existing custody determination from another state unless the decree state has lost or declined continuing jurisdiction, or the statutory residency conditions for ending the decree state’s jurisdiction are satisfied.
- A child’s extended residence and connections in the new state do not, by themselves, authorize that state to modify an existing custody order entered by another state that still has continuing jurisdiction.
- Safety concerns may support temporary protective action in appropriate circumstances, but they do not automatically confer power to enter a permanent modification contrary to the UCCJEA’s limits on modification jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Snow v. Snow holds that Oregon could not grant Grandmother full custody because the requested order would alter North Dakota’s existing custody decree, and North Dakota retained continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA while the mother remained a North Dakota resident and North Dakota had not relinquished jurisdiction.


Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (2003)