JOSE GUARDALUPE HERNANDEZ, also known as JOSE GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VICTORIA MAYORAL-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
Circuit Court. LC No. 18-009990-DC.
JOSE GUARDALUPE HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant: AMY GRAUMAN.
VICTORIA MAYORAL-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellee: MATTHEW S.
Before: SAWYER, P.J., and BORRELLO and SHAPIRO, JJ.
Mich.App. 208] Douglas B. Shapiro, J.
appeals the circuit court's order dismissing this case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA),
MCL 722.1101 et seq. The court's ruling was based on
its conclusion that Mexico was the minor child's "
home state." However, in this case the child did not
have a home state as that term is defined by the UCCJEA.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court so
that it may fully consider whether it has jurisdiction under
parties never married but were in a romantic relationship for
several years. In June 2016, defendant-mother gave birth to a
daughter in Michigan. The next day plaintiff signed an
affidavit of parentage, which granted defendant "
initial custody" of the child. MCL 722.1006. The
parties' relationship ended sometime after the
child's birth. In May 2017, defendant went with the child
to Mexico to visit relatives. According to plaintiff, in
November 2017 defendant returned to Michigan without the
child. The circuit court found that the child has been living
with the maternal grandmother in Mexico since May 23, 2017.
Mich.App. 209] In November 2018, plaintiff filed a complaint
for custody and requested that the circuit court order the
child's return to Michigan. He asserted that the court
had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Defendant
appeared pro per for the hearing and said that she took the
child to Mexico to keep her from plaintiff. Defendant
considered plaintiff " a threat" to her and the
child. The court found that Michigan was the child's home
state under the UCCJEA and ordered defendant to arrange for
the child's return to Michigan.
Defendant obtained counsel and moved the circuit court to
vacate its prior order. Defendant argued that Mexico, not
Michigan, had home-state jurisdiction because the child had
been living there since May 2017. Defendant asserted that the
maternal grandmother had initiated a " custody
action" in Mexico, but also referred to that matter as a
" guardianship proceeding." Defendant argued that
the Mexico court would likely find jurisdiction over the
child and asked the circuit court to defer to those
hearing on defendant's motion was held in December 2018.
Both parties presented arguments regarding jurisdiction under
the UCCJEA. The circuit court now found that Mexico was the
child's home state. The court also found that there was
no indication that Mexico has declined jurisdiction or is
likely to do so. Accordingly, the ...