Can Utah courts lose jurisdiction when a child moves to an Indian reservation? In re A.J.B. Explained

In In re A.J.B., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a juvenile court loses jurisdiction over child custody proceedings when a child moves to an Indian reservation during the case. The decision clarifies the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) in cases involving tribal courts.

Background and Facts

In 2014, the Division of Child and Family Services filed a petition seeking protective supervision of A.J.B., alleging that the child resided in Duchesne County, Utah. The petition stated that neither parent was a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, making the child not an “Indian Child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). During the proceedings, the child’s maternal grandparents moved to Whiterocks, Utah, located within the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The mother later argued that this move divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction and vested jurisdiction in the tribal court.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the juvenile court lost jurisdiction when the child moved to the reservation, and (2) whether the juvenile court should have contacted the tribal court to discuss jurisdictional issues before proceeding with the termination hearing.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the UCCJEA framework, noting that Utah was the child’s “home state” when proceedings commenced because the child had lived in Duchesne County for at least six consecutive months before the petition was filed. Under the UCCJEA, once a court makes an initial custody determination, it retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until specific statutory conditions are met for relinquishing jurisdiction. The court found that neither the child’s relocation nor any formal determination had divested the juvenile court of its continuing jurisdiction.

Regarding communication with the tribal court, the court noted that while Rule 100 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure governs coordination between Utah state courts, interstate communication is governed by the UCCJEA, which states that a Utah court “may” communicate with courts in other jurisdictions. The permissive language grants discretion rather than imposing a mandate.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is not automatically lost when children move during proceedings. Practitioners should carefully establish the child’s home state at case commencement and monitor whether statutory conditions for loss of jurisdiction have been satisfied. While courts have discretion whether to communicate with tribal courts, the opinion suggests such communication may be advisable “where the sister court in question is the court of a sovereign Indian tribe housed in relatively close proximity” for reasons of “comity, respect, and good community relations.”