Can parents escape juvenile court jurisdiction by fleeing to another state? In re Z.Z. Explained

In In re Z.Z., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether parents can divest a juvenile court of jurisdiction by fleeing to another state with their children during pending custody proceedings. The court’s analysis provides crucial guidance on how the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) operates to prevent forum shopping and jurisdictional manipulation.

Background and Facts

The parents had an extensive history with DCFS dating back to 1997, with sixteen prior cases and other children permanently removed. In July 2009, DCFS obtained custody of five children through a shelter hearing. Rather than comply with court proceedings, the parents fled to Colorado with the children. DCFS moved to close the case but specifically requested the court “retain jurisdiction in this matter in the event the family returns.” The juvenile court granted this motion in January 2010, ordering the case terminated while expressly retaining jurisdiction.

When four children returned to Utah in April 2010, DCFS resumed proceedings under the same case number. The parents failed to appear for the termination trial, requesting a continuance only on the morning of trial due to conflicting Colorado criminal proceedings.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the juvenile court retained subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to terminate parental rights after the January 2010 dismissal order. The parents argued this order divested the court of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Additionally, the court addressed whether parents’ due process rights were violated when the termination trial proceeded in their absence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied Utah Code section 78B-13-202(1), which provides that exclusive, continuing jurisdiction is only lost when specific determinations are made. The court found no such determination occurred here. Critically, the January 2010 order did not determine that “neither [a] child, nor a parent… resides in this state” as required by the statute. Instead, it merely terminated the case for DCFS’s administrative convenience while expressly retaining jurisdiction.

The court emphasized that allowing parents to unilaterally divest jurisdiction by fleeing would undermine the UCCJEA’s purposes. The official commentary supports this, noting that “jurisdiction attaches at the commencement of a proceeding” and is not lost by parties moving out of state before conclusion.

On the due process claim, the court found no violation where parents received proper notice but failed to seek a timely continuance, waiting until the morning of trial to raise scheduling conflicts.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that courts retain jurisdiction over child custody matters even when families relocate out of state, provided jurisdiction is expressly preserved. Practitioners should carefully review dismissal orders to ensure jurisdictional language aligns with client objectives. The ruling also reinforces that due process requires timely action—last-minute continuance requests will face strict scrutiny absent extraordinary circumstances beyond a party’s control.