In re the Matter of Lynch

5 Citing cases

  1. Piedimonte v. Nissen

    817 S.W.2d 260 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that "order of guardianship . . . [in effect] terminated the parental right on a finding of ordinary neglect without opportunity for the mother to rehabilitate the neglect or even the prelude of supervision and investigation that the law prescribes for an order of custody on that ground" pursuant to sections 211.031.1, 211.181.1 &, 211.447.2 & (RSMo Supp. 1990)

    Thus, a ruling of jurisdiction by a court that is merely conclusory or that assumes jurisdiction, but is tacit as to the factual basis for that adjudication, does not meet the objectives of the Act. Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383, 1385[3-5] (Colo.App. 1989); Application of Pierce, 184 Mont. 82, 601 P.2d 1179, 1183[5-8] (1979). See also Jerson v. Jerson, 68 N.C. App. 738, 315 S.E.2d 522, 523[4] (N.C. App. 1984).

  2. Straight v. Straight

    195 S.W.3d 461 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 10 times

    However, a ruling of jurisdiction by a court that is merely conclusory or that assumes jurisdiction, but is tacit as to the factual basis for that adjudication, does not meet the objectives of uniform acts designed to avoid jurisdictional disputes. Piedimonte v. Nissen, 817 S.W.2d 260, 266 (Mo.App. 1991) (citing Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383, 1385 (Colo.App. 1989)). Under both UIFSA and the UCCJA, the Florida court could not have assumed jurisdiction by simply stating that it had jurisdiction.

  3. People in Interest of K.G

    876 P.2d 1 (Colo. App. 1993)   Cited 3 times

    If two states may potentially exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJA, exclusive jurisdiction is generally conferred on the state in which the matter is first raised. In re Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383 (Colo.App. 1989). Accordingly, a Colorado court is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction if, at the time of filing, another state is exercising continuing jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJA.

  4. Nazar v. Nazar

    474 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 4 times
    In Nazar, Minnesota was the home state and this court remanded to permit appellant to test in the Minnesota court whether Louisiana had properly assumed emergency jurisdiction.

    Further, foreign authority under the UCCJA suggests a similar result. See Davis v. Davis, 53 N.C. App. 531, 539-40, 281 S.E.2d 411, 416 (1981) ("When, as here, there is an action already pending in another state, the trial court must answer the threshold question of whether the state was 'exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with [the UCCJA]'") (emphasis in original); see also Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383, 1385-86 (Colo.App. 1989) ("Colorado trial courts are free to determine whether the other court's proceedings are substantially in conformity with the UCCJA, and indeed must do so if the issue is raised." (citation omitted)).

  5. Cummings v. Cummings

    1999 Ct. Sup. 703 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1999)

    In addition, under the UCCJA this court has the authority to determine whether a court of another state is acting substantially in conformity with the Act and the court is not required to accept conclusory rulings or generalized assertions by another state court that it has jurisdiction. See Lynch v. Lynch, 770 P.2d 1383, 1385-1380 (Colo.App. 1989); Davis v. Davis, 281 S.E.2d 411, 415-416 (N.C.App. 1981). However, the jurisdictional issue has not been specifically raised in Michigan, despite the mother's clear opportunity to do so, and the Michigan court has not issued any final or preliminary decisions in the case which would require it to make an explicit jurisdictional finding in accordance with the UCCJA.