Guardianship of A.D.H.: UCCJEA Jurisdictional Safeguards in Interstate Guardianship Transfers

Introduction

In Guardianship of A.D.H., the Supreme Court of Montana addressed whether a guardianship proceeding involving visitation rights qualifies as a “child custody proceeding” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and how courts must proceed before transferring guardianship matters across state lines. The dispute arose after A.D.H.’s paternal grandmother and step-grandfather (Edward and Lennore Nellis) obtained guardianship in Lake County, Montana, over objections by the child’s biological mother (Kimberly Rose). When the Nellis petitioners moved to Oregon and sought a provisional transfer of the guardianship, Rose challenged the transfer and sought to terminate the guardianship and move venue back to Broadwater County, Montana. The District Court provisionally transferred the matter to Oregon under an adult-guardianship statute. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the UCCJEA governs and remanding for a proper jurisdictional and factual analysis.

Summary of the Judgment

• The District Court granted temporary and then permanent guardianship to Edward and Lennore Nellis in 2020, based on a settlement agreement with Rose that included visitation terms.
• In 2024, Rose moved to terminate the guardianship and change venue to Broadwater County. The petitioners opposed that motion and sought to transfer the guardianship to Oregon under Montana’s adult-guardianship transfer statute (MCA § 72-5-624).
• Without factfinding or an interstate communication process, the District Court provisionally transferred the guardianship to a court in Oregon.
• The Supreme Court reversed that provisional transfer, holding that:
  • The guardianship proceeding with visitation rights is a “child custody proceeding” under the UCCJEA.
  • Montana courts must follow UCCJEA procedures—fact‐finding, determining appropriate jurisdiction, and conducting an informal jurisdictional conference—before any interstate transfer.
  • The appeal is remanded to the District Court to develop an adequate factual record under the UCCJEA; the appeal is dismissed without prejudice.

Analysis

Precedents and Statutes Cited

• The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Montana Code Annotated §§ 40-7-101 to 40-7-203:
  • Defines “child custody proceeding” to include guardianship and visitation orders.
  • Establishes the procedures for determining which state court has jurisdiction over custody issues and how courts should communicate across state lines.
• MCA § 72-5-624: Governs transfers of adult guardianship and conservatorship proceedings—held inapplicable where a minor’s guardianship with visitation rights is involved.
• MCA § 72-1-203(3): Addresses venue when estate or protected-person proceedings are filed in multiple Montana courts—irrelevant because no parallel proceedings existed in more than one Montana forum.

Legal Reasoning

1. Classification under UCCJEA: The Supreme Court noted that guardianship orders which include visitation rights fall squarely within the UCCJEA’s definition of a “child custody proceeding.” Because the Settlement Agreement incorporated into the December 2020 guardianship order granted and regulated Rose’s visitation, the entire proceeding became subject to the UCCJEA.

2. Statutory Misapplication: The petitioners’ reliance on MCA § 72-5-624 (adult-guardianship transfer) and § 72-1-203(3) (venue among Montana courts) was misplaced. The appropriate mechanism for interstate transfer of a minor’s guardianship is found in the UCCJEA, not the adult-guardianship or intra-state venue provisions.

3. Necessity of Factual Record and Interstate Conference: The Court emphasized that before any transfer under the UCCJEA, the trial court must:

• Conduct fact-finding to determine which state is the child’s “home state” or has significant connections;
• Hold any necessary hearing;
• Engage in an informal jurisdictional conference with the court of another state.

Because none of these steps occurred, the provisional transfer was legally deficient.

Impact on Future Cases

Guardianship of A.D.H. makes clear that:

• Courts must treat guardianship proceedings with visitation rights as child custody matters under the UCCJEA.
• Trial courts cannot shortcut jurisdictional transfer by relying on adult-guardianship statutes or informal pleadings alone.
• A robust factual record—including hearings and interstate court communications—is required before transferring jurisdiction.

This decision will guide practitioners and courts in interstate child-custody and guardianship disputes, deterring forum shopping and ensuring due process for all parties.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• UCCJEA: A uniform law adopted by states to decide which court has authority over child custody and visitation disputes, aiming to reduce conflicting orders and “jurisdictional competition.”
• Home State: Under the UCCJEA, the state where the child lived with a parent or guardian for at least six consecutive months immediately before the custody proceeding.
• Informal Jurisdictional Conference: A communication process between state courts to resolve questions of jurisdiction and avoid parallel proceedings.
• Provisional Transfer: A temporary measure transferring a case to another state’s court, subject to confirmation once jurisdictional prerequisites are satisfied.

Conclusion

Guardianship of A.D.H. establishes a critical precedent: whenever a guardianship order incorporates visitation rights, the UCCJEA governs jurisdictional questions and interstate transfers. Trial courts must create a full factual record, hold hearings, and communicate with the prospective receiving state’s court before approving any transfer. This decision safeguards children’s and parents’ rights by ensuring that custody and guardianship matters proceed in the appropriate forum under clear, uniform standards.