G.S. v. R.L.

6 Citing cases

  1. S.A.G. v. B.A.G. (In re S.A.G.)

    487 P.3d 677 (Colo. 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Discussing problem

    ¶51 Thus, we agree with those courts that have held that a court cannot decline jurisdiction unless it has been "asked." In re Parental Resps. Concerning B.C.B. , 2015 COA 42, ¶ 12, 411 P.3d 926, 930 ("Idaho was not asked, and therefore did not decline, to exercise its home state jurisdiction ...."); see also In re J.C., 832 S.E.2d at 99 (holding that significant-connection jurisdiction was impossible because "the record in this case does not disclose that a ‘court’ in Virginia was contacted and declined to exercise jurisdiction"); G.S. v. R.L., 259 So. 3d 677, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (rejecting significant-connection and more-appropriate-forum jurisdiction because "[t]he record in these cases does not contain any order from any Tennessee court declining to exercise its home-state jurisdiction"); In re Aiden L., 16 Cal.App.5th 508, 224 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400, 408 (2017) ("[I]f the court is aware that another state ... qualifies as the child's home state, the California court must contact the home state court to give it an opportunity to decide whether to exercise its home state jurisdiction."). ¶52 We disagree with the People and the GAL that this result conflicts with sections 14-13-110(1), C.R.S. (2020), and 14-13-204(4).

  2. People in Interest of S.A.G. v. B.A.G.

    2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021)

    ¶51 Thus, we agree with those courts that have held that a court cannot decline jurisdiction unless it has been "asked." In re Parental Resps. Concerning B.C.B., 2015 COA 42, ¶ 12, 411 P.3d 926, 930 ("Idaho was not asked, and therefore did not decline, to exercise its home state jurisdiction . . . ."); see also In re J.C., 832 S.E.2d at 99 (holding that significant-connection jurisdiction was impossible because "the record in this case does not disclose that a 'court' in Virginia was contacted and declined to exercise jurisdiction"); G.S. v. R.L., 259 So.3d 677, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) (rejecting significant-connection and more-appropriate-forum jurisdiction because "[t]he record in these cases does not contain any order from any Tennessee court declining to exercise its home-state jurisdiction"); In re Aiden L., 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 400, 408 (Cal.Ct.App. 2017) ("[I]f the court is aware that another state . . . qualifies as the child's home state, the California court must contact the home state court to give it an opportunity to decide whether to exercise its home state jurisdiction."). ¶52 We disagree with the People and the GAL that this result conflicts with sections 14-13-110(1), C.R.S. (2020), and 14-13-204(4).

  3. In re J.C.

    242 W. Va. 165 (W. Va. 2019)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that significant-connection jurisdiction was impossible because "the record in this case does not disclose that a ‘court’ in Virginia was contacted and declined to exercise jurisdiction"

    See Rust v. Rust , 2018 WL 4760157, at *5 (Tex. App. Oct. 3, 2018) ("The only other basis upon which the trial court could acquire jurisdiction over the custody suit is if the North Carolina court declined jurisdiction on the ground that Texas is a more appropriate forum. However, the record contains no pleadings or proof to support such a conclusion."); G.S. v. R.L ., 259 So. 3d 677, 681 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018) ("The record in these cases does not contain any order from any Tennessee court declining to exercise its home-state jurisdiction over the children[.]"); In re E.R ., 28 Cal. App. 5th 74, 80, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871, 876 (2018) ("California court obtained jurisdiction on July 19, 2017, the date the Nevada court declined to exercise jurisdiction.

  4. T.R. v. Tuscaloosa Cnty. Dep't of Human Res.

    No. CL-2024-0381 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 22, 2024)

    Therefore, because the juvenile court failed to obtain subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, the juvenile court's final judgment awarding permanent custody of the child to the custodians is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See G.S. v. R.L., 259 So.3d 677 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018).

  5. A.M.H. v. D.E.H.

    376 So. 3d 536 (Ala. Civ. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A void judgment will not support an appeal. G.S. v. R.L., 259 So. 3d 677, 682 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). Accordingly, we dismiss the father’s appeal with instructions that the trial court set aside the November 4, 2021, judgment and all orders entered after February 2021.

  6. Ex parte J.M.

    270 So. 3d 1174 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018)

    Thus, the jurisdiction exercised by the juvenile court in these actions was limited. "A juvenile court with only temporary emergency jurisdiction cannot adjudicate the dependency of a child unless and until it first complies with § 30–3B–204...." G.S. v. R.L., 259 So.3d 677 (Ala. Civ. App. 2018). In G.S. v. R.L., supra, this court held that judgments purporting to find the children at issue in that case dependent and making a custody award based on that finding were void, and this court dismissed the appeal with instructions for the juvenile court in that case to comply with the requirements of § 30-3B-204.