CAROL A. WOLVEN, JUDGE.
The plaintiff commenced this action by Dissolution Complaint and Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Hearing for Immediate Temporary Custody dated December 6, 2005. The defendant filed a Dissolution Complaint and Motion for Emergency Custody Orders in Colorado dated November 29, 2005. Temporary orders were entered in Colorado pertaining to the children, including, inter alia, that the children were not to be removed from the state.
This court scheduled a hearing, which was continued at the defendant's request for time to secure counsel to January 31, 2006, at which time both parties presented and were represented. Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which governs the determination of child custody jurisdiction in this matter, this court communicated with the Colorado Court on January 10, 2006. Notes from that conversation were read into the record during the hearing on January 31, 2006. Colorado Magistrate Chapman and this court were in accord that Connecticut was the "home state" pursuant to C.G.S. § 46b-115a(2) and § 46b-115a(7) of Connecticut's UCCJEA and C.R.S. § 14-13-201 and § 14-13-102(7) of Colorado's UCCJEA. It was agreed that this court would conduct a hearing to provide the parties with an opportunity to address issues of jurisdiction. Magistrate Chapman and this court again conversed upon the conclusion of the hearing; a transcript of this conversation was provided to counsel.
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted in a majority of states, became effective in Connecticut on July 1, 2000. It replaced the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) which was the law controlling jurisdiction between states in child custody and visitation actions for almost thirty years. The UCCJA provided CT Page 4947 four alternative jurisdictional grounds to make child custody determinations, including "significant connection," with the state. This created the possibility that more than one state would have jurisdiction over a proceeding. Moreover, the original Act also conflicted with the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), passed in 1980, which gives priority to the "home state" in establishing initial jurisdiction. Patricia M. Hoff, "The ABC'S of the UCCJEA: Interstate Child-Custody Practice Under the New Act," 32 Fam. L.Q. 267, 267-79 (1998). These inconsistencies resulted in disparate court interpretations and contradictory custody orders, greatly undermining the original purpose of the UCCJA. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, 9 Uniform Laws Annotated (U.L.A.) 1 (1997).
"The purposes of the UCCJEA are to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody; promote cooperation with the courts of other states; discourage continuing controversies over child custody; deter abductions; avoid re-litigation of custody decisions; and to facilitate the enforcement of decrees of other states." Radlo v. Radlo, 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 136, Superior Court, Judicial district of Windham at Putnam, (December 2, 2003, Cosgrove, J.). To remedy the confusion caused by the alternate provisions in the UCCJA, the UCCJEA prioritizes "home state" when establishing jurisdiction. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, 9 U.L.A. 2 (1997). In addition, the term "best interest" was specifically omitted from the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA to sharply delineate between jurisdictional standards and the substantive standards relating to child custody and visitation, 9 U.L.A. 4 (1997).
Under the UCCJEA a "home state" may be requested to consider whether it is an inconvenient forum for the purpose of deciding custody or visitation. C.G.S. § 46b-115q. "In determining whether a court of this state is an inconvenient forum and that it is more appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors including: (1) Whether family violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; (5) any agreement of the parties as to which state CT Page 4948 should assume jurisdiction; (6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issues expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation."
After considering these factors the "home state" may conclude it is not the appropriate forum for resolution of custody issues in a particular matter. In that instance, the court may relinquish jurisdiction to another state's court. § 46b-115q. Despite the absence of "best interest" language in Connecticut's UCCJEA, some courts have considered "best interest" of the child as a relevant factor to consider when examining "inconvenient forum." See: Osgood v. Osgood, No. FA-97 0062844, Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville (October 31, 2003, Graziani, J.).
During the hearing on January 31, 2006, the parties introduced evidence on inconvenient forum and conduct of the parties, the two provisions under Connecticut's UCCJEA which could affect this court's retention of jurisdiction. C.G.S. § 46b-115q and § 46b-115r. This court listened to the testimony of the parties, evaluated their credibility, reviewed the exhibits, and considered the statutory and case law. The court finds as follows.
Following the hearing the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction premised on § 46b-115q of the Connecticut Act. The court made a finding from the bench that C.G.S. § 46b-115r was not relevant to this determination.
The parties were married in Connecticut on May 24, 1997. They have three children, Zachary, date of birth November 23, 1999, and twins, Nicholas and Alexander, who were born on July 28, 2004. The Lippman's lived in Connecticut as a family until August 29, 2005, at which time the defendant and her mom drove the children to Colorado for an extended stay. Mr. Lippman was aware of these travel plans, and consented to them, at least on a temporary basis. Upon arriving in Colorado, Ms. Perham-Lippman entered an inpatient rehabilitation program and her parents, who reside in Colorado, cared for the children.
Upon release from the inpatient program the defendant attended outpatient programs for substance abuse problems. The plaintiff visited the defendant and their children in Colorado in October. There were conversations between the parties which vacillated between the defendant returning to Connecticut and remaining in Colorado. The plaintiff purchased a ticket to Colorado on CT Page 4949 November 16, 2005 intending to drive his family from Colorado back to Connecticut in December. The defendant informed him on December 1, 2005, that she was not returning to Connecticut.
The plaintiff has been employed full-time at the University of Connecticut for many years and is the sole income earner of the family. The distance between Connecticut and Colorado is too great to allow "commuting" to court appearances. Requiring extended absences from his work to attend court hearings in Colorado could jeopardize his job and the family income. The marital home is located in Vernon, CT, and is available to the defendant during the course of this proceeding.
The plaintiff suffered a back injury years ago which causes him pain for which he takes prescription medication. This does not interfere with his work. While the defendant claims that his behavior while medicated jeopardizes their children, the court finds little evidence to support this contention. There is no history of family violence. The oldest child, who is in first grade in Colorado, was enrolled in school in Connecticut and all children were seen by Connecticut physicians in Connecticut for the majority of their lives.
Importantly, the parties have been residents of Connecticut for many years. Their physical and psychological health histories are significant to this case. The physicians and health care providers are located in this state, where they would be available to testify and be cross examined. The children resided in Colorado only three months prior to the initiation of these proceedings. This court held a full-day hearing in this matter and, thus, is more familiar with the issues than the Colorado court, which has been extremely cooperative through this process. Both venues can address this matter expeditiously.
The defendant maintains that she has been able to maintain sobriety in Colorado with her parents' support and that it is in her best interest, as well as her children's, to remain in Colorado. By motion subsequent to the January 31, 2006 hearing, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is relocating to Colorado, a factor which should be considered under the inconvenient forum analysis. By affidavit, the plaintiff denies that he has no plans to relocate, which this court finds credible.
The court finds that Connecticut should retain jurisdiction CT Page 4950 over this child custody determination. Connecticut was the "home state" of the children at the time of the initiation of these proceedings. § 46b-115q and § 46b-115a. Moreover, the court has carefully considered the factors articulated in Connecticut General Statute § 46b-115q(b), and finds that Connecticut is not an inconvenient forum; rather, it is the situs where the best interests of these children can be most carefully considered.
Connecticut's UCCJEA is substantially similar to Colorado's UCCJEA, Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 14 Article 13.
The court is sympathetic to the defendant's addiction problems, it may be in her best interest to continue to reside in Colorado. The court cannot; however, equate the mom's best interest with the children's best interest, at this time. It is also important for the children to be reunited with their father. The final determination concerning the children's best interest, custody and residency should be litigated in Connecticut. Accordingly, jurisdiction is retained; the defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
The following orders are entered:
1) The defendant, mother, shall return to Connecticut with the three children to participate in the child custody proceedings within thirty days, or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, with court approval.
2) The cost of any expenses relating to the defendant's and children's relocation and travel shall be the responsibility of the plaintiff father.
3) This court will communicate with the Colorado court concerning this decision.
4) Counsel for the parties shall present to this court for a status conference on March 21, 2006.