Can Utah courts hear custody cases when a child lives in another state? Nevares v. Adoptive Couple Explained

The Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) strictly controls which state can hear child custody cases. In Nevares v. Adoptive Couple, the Utah Supreme Court clarified when Utah courts must dismiss custody actions in favor of courts in other states.

Background and Facts

Bobby Nevares filed a paternity and custody action in Utah district court seeking custody of a child he believed to be his son. The child was born in Utah but lived there only eight days before being placed with adoptive parents who took him to Illinois. The child had resided in Illinois for over five years when the adoptive couple intervened in the Utah case, arguing that Utah lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah had jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under Utah Code section 78B-13-201. The court analyzed four potential bases for jurisdiction: (1) home state jurisdiction, (2) significant connection jurisdiction, (3) declined jurisdiction by other states, and (4) default jurisdiction when no other state qualifies.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held Utah lacked jurisdiction under all applicable provisions. Utah was not the child’s home state because the child had not lived there for six consecutive months and no parent remained in Utah. Utah also lacked significant connection jurisdiction because neither the child nor his caregivers had substantial ongoing connections to Utah beyond the initial birth. Importantly, Illinois had jurisdiction under the significant connection test since both the child and adoptive parents had resided there for over five years with substantial evidence of the child’s care available in Illinois.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA can be raised at any time and will result in dismissal regardless of how much time and resources have been invested in litigation. Courts must prioritize jurisdictional analysis over substantive merits. The case also illustrates the UCCJEA’s emphasis on uniformity and predictability in interstate custody disputes, even when this means sacrificing a party’s preferred forum.