## Facts

- Mother and father married in Arizona in 1996, later moved to Oklahoma for work, and their child was born in Oklahoma on April 28, 1999.
- After the birth, mother and child moved back and forth between Oklahoma and Arizona.
- The child lived in Oklahoma from birth to December 1999, Arizona from December 1999 to March 2000, Oklahoma from March 2000 to September 2000, and Arizona from September 2000 to January 25, 2001.
- On January 25, 2001, mother filed in Arizona for dissolution and child custody.
- Two days after being served, father filed for divorce and custody in Oklahoma on February 8, 2001.
- The Arizona trial court communicated with the Oklahoma court as contemplated by the UCCJEA, found Oklahoma to be the child’s home state, and dismissed the Arizona proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
- Mother sought special-action review, challenging the interpretation of “home state” and the resulting dismissal.

## Issues

1. Under the UCCJEA, whether “home state” for initial custody jurisdiction is limited to the state where the child lived during the immediately preceding six months, or includes a state that was the home state at any time within the six months before filing.
2. Whether a first-filed custody petition in a non-home state can defeat the home state’s priority to exercise initial custody jurisdiction.
3. Whether “best interests of the child” considerations may be used to decide initial jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
4. Whether dismissal for lack of child-custody jurisdiction required dismissal of the entire action, including the dissolution claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction to resolve the UCCJEA interpretation questions.
- The court held that “home state” includes the last state where the child lived with a parent for six consecutive months at any time within the six months before commencement of the custody proceeding.
- Applying that rule, the court concluded Oklahoma was the child’s home state because the child lived there for six consecutive months (March–September 2000) within the six months preceding the Arizona filing.
- The court rejected “first-in-time” filing as a basis to override home-state priority under the UCCJEA.
- The court held that “best interests” analysis is not part of determining initial custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- The court agreed Arizona lacked child-custody jurisdiction and that Oklahoma was the proper forum for the initial custody determination.
- The court noted Arizona could have retained jurisdiction over marital dissolution even without custody jurisdiction, but it declined to decide whether dismissal of the dissolution claim was proper because that issue was not squarely presented for review.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, initial custody jurisdiction prioritizes “home state” jurisdiction over other jurisdictional bases.
- For initial jurisdiction, a state may qualify as the “home state” if it was the child’s home state within six months before the proceeding commenced, permitting a look-back to the most recent qualifying six-month residence.
- Filing first in a non-home state does not create or preserve custody jurisdiction when another state qualifies as the home state.
- “Best interests of the child” is a merits standard for custody determinations and is not used to select the state with initial custody jurisdiction.
- Jurisdiction over marital dissolution is distinct from custody jurisdiction; a court may have authority to dissolve a marriage even if it lacks authority to decide child custody.

## Conclusion

The court interpreted the UCCJEA to give controlling priority to the child’s home state based on a six-month look-back period, held that first filing and best-interests considerations do not determine initial custody jurisdiction, and affirmed the lack of Arizona custody jurisdiction while leaving unresolved whether Arizona should have retained the dissolution claim.


Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 202 Ariz. 201, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)