Trial court property found jurisdiction under the UCCJEA although child had only be in Wisconsin three months at time of filing. There would be no purpose in finding Indiana to be the home state since Grandmother in Indiana did not claim custody.
Where wife moved to Wisconsin when pregnant and filed action after child was born, Wisconsin was child’s “home state” under Wis. Stat. §822.02(7) and Wisconsin has initial jurisdiction under Wis. Stat. §822.21(1).
(1) To the extent that they conflict, PKPA preempts the UCCJA. (2) PKPA prohibits a state court from exercising jurisdiction in any child custody dispute over which another state is currently exercising jurisdiction. (3) The state that initially enters a child custody determination has the sole prerogative to modify that determination, as long as the modification is valid under its own law and either the child or a contestant continues to live in that state.
(1) Court has personal jurisdiction over mother where she has notice and opportunity under UCCJA. (2) Iowa was home state for children under UCCJA where the children had lived there for 15 months, then Wisconsin for three and one-half months, then moved back to Iowa.
Court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction, but, the court did not have jurisdiction under the UCCJA, since the children did not have a significant connection with the state. Summer visitation is insufficient to establish maximum contact with Wisconsin.
Guardianship and TPR proceedings are custody proceedings within the meaning of the UCCJA. Under the UCCJA, the Wisconsin court properly assumed jurisdiction and could modify the California custody decree.
UCCJA jurisdiction not invoked where father moves with child from Wisconsin to Texas §822.07 applies to initial custody determination or modification, not to contempt proceedings.
UCCJA requires as a condition to recognition and enforcement of foreign-nation custody decrees that reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard be given to all affected persons.
Wisconsin had jurisdiction under UCCJA where Minnesota declined to exercise its jurisdiction.
Wisconsin court properly exercised jurisdiction when another state decline jurisdiction, deferring to Wisconsin.
Where children’s only contact with Wisconsin is for summer visitation, jurisdiction under UCCJA is in Texas, where they live the rest of the year.
Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under “significant connections” test where children were abducted to Wisconsin since to do so would encourage abductions.
A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if a party does not have clean hands. This requires a finding of wrongful removal or similar reprehensible conduct.
Trial court properly relied on mother’s agreement that any custody dispute would be litigated in Illinois. A forum selection clause should be enforced unless to do so would be unreasonable.