## Facts

- Victoria Ferrara (Mother) and William E. Taylor (Father) married in Missouri; their child was born in 1988.
- The family moved to Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1994.
- In 1999, a New Mexico court entered a dissolution decree incorporating an agreement providing joint legal custody and primary physical custody to Father.
- In 2002, Father moved with the child to St. Louis, Missouri; Mother remained in New Mexico.
- In 2003, Father registered the New Mexico decree in St. Louis as a foreign judgment.
- In 2004, Father filed a Missouri motion to modify custody and support under the New Mexico decree.
- Mother entered a special appearance and moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) and New Mexico’s continuing jurisdiction.
- The Missouri circuit court denied dismissal; Mother sought a writ of prohibition in the Missouri Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a Missouri court has subject-matter jurisdiction to modify a New Mexico custody decree where New Mexico remains the residence of a contestant and has not declined jurisdiction, given the PKPA’s limits on modification.
2. Whether prohibition is an appropriate remedy to stop a trial court from proceeding when it would act in excess of its jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The court of appeals held the Missouri circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the New Mexico custody determination.
- The PKPA required Missouri to enforce, and not modify, the New Mexico decree because New Mexico retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
- Prohibition was proper because the circuit court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction would be in excess of its authority.
- The preliminary writ was made absolute, and the circuit court was directed to dismiss Father’s modification motion.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PKPA, a state must enforce another state’s custody determination made consistently with the PKPA and may not modify it unless the decree state has lost or declined jurisdiction.
- The decree state retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the PKPA as long as it remains the residence of the child or any contestant and continues to have jurisdiction under its own law.
- When a state custody-jurisdiction statute would permit modification but conflicts with the PKPA, the PKPA controls as federal law.
- A writ of prohibition may issue to prevent a lower court from taking action without, or in excess of, subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

Missouri could not modify the New Mexico custody decree because Mother continued to reside in New Mexico and New Mexico had not relinquished jurisdiction; the PKPA barred concurrent modification jurisdiction, and prohibition properly compelled dismissal of the Missouri modification proceeding.


State ex rel. Ferrara v. Neill, 165 S.W.3d 539 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2005)