Utah Court of Appeals
When does temporary absence affect a child's home state under the UCCJEA? Bradshaw v. Pelley-Whelan Explained
Summary
Bradshaw filed a parentage petition in Utah seeking custody of her child born in California. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, finding California was the child’s home state and any Utah visits were temporary absences. The court of appeals affirmed based on unchallenged factual findings that Bradshaw spent only 55 days in Utah in 2017 and failed to establish intent to permanently relocate from California.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a crucial question for family law practitioners in Bradshaw v. Pelley-Whelan: when do visits to Utah constitute temporary absences rather than establishing a new home state under the Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)?
Background and Facts
Bradshaw and Pelley-Whelan’s child was born in California in July 2016. In October 2017, Bradshaw filed a parentage petition in Utah seeking custody. Pelley-Whelan moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing California remained the child’s home state. At an evidentiary hearing, Bradshaw presented evidence of Utah property ownership, tax returns, and visits, while Pelley-Whelan demonstrated the child’s primary residence remained California, where the child was enrolled in activities and maintained medical care.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was determining the child’s home state under the UCCJEA for the six-month period preceding Bradshaw’s petition filing. Under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-13-102(7), a home state is where a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months, with temporary absences counting toward that period.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The district court applied a totality of circumstances test from Garba v. Ndiaye, examining duration of absence and intent to relocate permanently. Key findings included that Bradshaw spent only 55 days in Utah during 2017 and failed to establish intent to permanently relocate from California. The court concluded any Utah visits constituted temporary absences, making California the child’s home state. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, noting Bradshaw did not challenge the factual findings.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the importance of preserving challenges to factual findings at the trial court level. Courts will examine both the duration of time spent in different states and evidence of intent to permanently relocate when determining whether absences are temporary. Practitioners should prepare comprehensive evidence of relocation intent, including employment changes, school enrollment, and severing ties with the previous state.
Case Details
Case Name
Bradshaw v. Pelley-Whelan
Citation
2019 UT App 201
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20181003-CA
Date Decided
December 12, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A Utah court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA when a child’s home state is California and any time spent outside California constitutes only temporary absences.
Standard of Review
Correctness for jurisdictional questions and statutory interpretation; clearly erroneous for underlying findings of fact
Practice Tip
When challenging UCCJEA jurisdiction determinations, preserve objections to all factual findings at the trial level, as failure to challenge findings of fact severely undermines appellate arguments about legal conclusions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.