Utah Divorce Court I often get people in my office that received a judgment for divorce in a state other than Utah, but now they live in Utah and want to enforce the decree. There are several determinations that need to be made before a Utah court will enforce a "foreign" divorce decree.
No Minor Children
If there are no minor children involved in the divorce then it is generally a much easier process to determine if Utah has jurisdiction, or the ability to enforce your divorce decree. If your decree was entered in another state but you moved to Utah, you can file the foreign judgment in a Utah divorce court and notify the other party that the judgment has been filed with a Utah court. Your ex-spouse can object to the filing, but he or she would have to show good cause as to why the judgment should not be recognized and enforced by a Utah divorce court. Generally as long as one of the parties is a resident of Utah, the court will adopt and enforce the foreign judgment.
Minor Children
If children are involved it's a little more complicated. Courts from any state are generally hesitant to step on another court's toes, and since the court that issued the decree retains jurisdiction as to custody issues, Utah divorce courts won't issue an order and make an amendment unless the original court has signed off on it. Utah courts follow the Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and/or the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). The latter supersedes the former because it is a federal act, but with most issues the two acts compliment each other. Most states have similar acts, and states are typically good at cooperating with each other in order to determine which state has custody, and avoid conflicting rulings from different state courts.
The UCCJEA
Utah Divorce Law The UCCJEA attempts to set jurisdiction where the most evidence is located and it is designed to prevent parents from taking their children from one jurisdiction to another in an attempt to gain an advantage over the other parent with regards to custody and parent time. A Utah divorce court can decline jurisdiction if it determines that Utah is an inconvenient forum, the Respondent can raise the issue of inconvenient forum with the court as well. Utah divorce courts generally look at the following factors when determining if the Utah forum is convenient or not:
1) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
2) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
3) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including the testimony of the child;
7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation.
Once Utah has jurisdiction over a child custody issue, Utah retains jurisdiction and has exclusive continuing jurisdiction until a court in Utah determines that neither the child nor one parent have significant connection with Utah, or none of the parties live in Utah any longer.
1) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
2) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
3) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including the testimony of the child;
7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation.
Once Utah has jurisdiction over a child custody issue, Utah retains jurisdiction and has exclusive continuing jurisdiction until a court in Utah determines that neither the child nor one parent have significant connection with Utah, or none of the parties live in Utah any longer.
The PKPA
Utah Divorce Getaway The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act was adopted because the laws and practices used by various states in determining jurisdiction were not consistent. The result was conflicting rulings from different states, and some states not giving full credit to decisions made in other states. The PKPA is a federal law, and it supersedes any state law. Therefore, if the PKPA is in conflict with the UCCJEA, the PKPA prevails.
In order for a child custody or visitation determination to be consistent with the PKPA, the state court must have jurisdiction under the law of that state (in Utah the UCCJEA, and one of the following must be met:
1) The state must be the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or had been the child's home state within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such state because of the child's removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in the state.
2) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1 and it is in the best interest of the child that the court of a state assume jurisdiction because the child and parents, or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence, and there is available in the state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
3) The child is physically present in the state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, a sibling, or parent of the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
4) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1, 2, 3, or 5 or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the state whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody or visitation of the child, and it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction.
5) The court has continuing jurisdiction because it made a child custody or visitation determination consistent with the PKPA, and the provisions of the PKPA continue to be met, and the state remains the residence of the child or any contestant.
It is apparent that the PKPA has a clear preference for home state jurisdiction in determining which state has jurisdiction.
In order for a child custody or visitation determination to be consistent with the PKPA, the state court must have jurisdiction under the law of that state (in Utah the UCCJEA, and one of the following must be met:
1) The state must be the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or had been the child's home state within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such state because of the child's removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in the state.
2) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1 and it is in the best interest of the child that the court of a state assume jurisdiction because the child and parents, or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence, and there is available in the state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
3) The child is physically present in the state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, a sibling, or parent of the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
4) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1, 2, 3, or 5 or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the state whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody or visitation of the child, and it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction.
5) The court has continuing jurisdiction because it made a child custody or visitation determination consistent with the PKPA, and the provisions of the PKPA continue to be met, and the state remains the residence of the child or any contestant.
It is apparent that the PKPA has a clear preference for home state jurisdiction in determining which state has jurisdiction.
Conclusion
As you can see, there are many many factors that go into determining if Utah has jurisdiction to either enforce or amend your foreign decree of divorce. This are of law is one in which it is definitely best to have legal counsel, unless you are very familiar with Utah law. Call Pearson Law Firm for a free consultation with an experienced Utah divorce attorney that can guide you through this process and protect you and your rights. Call today! 801-888-0991
RSS Feed
