Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Dakota's domestic violence protective order against the former husband full faith and credit under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2265 (2005). The former wife argues that the federal full faith and credit statute preempts any conflicting Florida statutes, including section 61.515, Florida Statutes (2005), which grants Florida courts exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its child custody decisions....

...Stat. (2005) (defining a "child custody proceeding" to include any proceeding involving protection from domestic violence, in which child custody is an issue). The former wife argues that the federal full faith and credit provisions should preempt section 61.515, Florida Statutes, which, as part of the UCCJEA, grants Florida courts exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its child custody decisions....

...issue any findings of fact on the issue, we nonetheless conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion in retaining jurisdiction and declining to determine that Florida is no longer a convenient forum for child custody proceedings. Under section 61.515, Florida Statutes (2005), Florida retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody issues....

...ency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order. § 61.517(4), Fla. Stat. (2005). Here, the Florida trial court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over issues of custody under section 61.515, as it issued the initial custody determination and had not otherwise relinquished jurisdiction....

...k up from the father. *743 Although the parties were divorced in Florida, which final judgment provided for shared responsibility, the court determined that all parties had moved to South Carolina, and the court had lost exclusive jurisdiction under section 61.515, Florida Statutes....

...In her petition, the mother asked for custody as the parties had moved to South Carolina. She also requested that the court order that the husband return the child to her, which the court ordered. At a hearing in Florida seeking to enforce the pick up order, the trial court concluded that pursuant to section 61.515, it should not continue to exercise exclusive jurisdiction because the child and parents did not have a significant connection with Florida and substantial evidence no longer existed in Florida relating to the child....

...his actions." Therefore, the court ordered the child to be placed in the physical custody of the mother who may remove the child to South Carolina. The trial court correctly ruled that it did not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issues. Section 61.515(1) provides that the Florida court has "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" until: (a) A court of this state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with th...

...his state. Here, the courts in Florida and South Carolina both determined that the child and parents relocated to South Carolina in 2005. The Florida court determined that the parties no longer maintained a significant connection with Florida. Under section 61.515, Florida Statutes, the Florida court lost exclusive jurisdiction. Once the court lost exclusive jurisdiction, it could not modify a child custody decree unless it had jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 61.514. See § 61.515(2), Fla....

...The trial court denied part of the Mother’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction finding, notwithstanding the intervening dependency matter, Florida had continuing, 2 exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.515, Florida Statutes....

...an inconvenient forum and the Father had not engaged in unjustifiable conduct. This appeal followed. We find no jurisdictional defect in the trial court’s determination that Florida retains jurisdiction over custody issues under these factual circumstances. Pursuant to section 61.515(1), a Florida court retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction after making a custody determination until it determines both parents and the children do not reside in or have a significant connection to the state. § 61.515(1), Fla....

...dy determination for the purposes of UCCJEA in granting the Aunt's Petition. See §§ 61.503(3), (8); .514(1)(a). The trial court therefore " 'retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction' over that determination." Beehler, 351 So. 3d at 1260 (quoting § 61.515(1))....

...Stat. (2022). 3  (b) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parent,[3] and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state. § 61.515(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). 3 The legislature’s use of the word “parent” in section 61.515(1)(b) appears to be a typographical error because the same provision in the uniform act and in other states uses the word “parents,” not parent....

...conflict between that subsection and subsection (1)(a) and section 61.516, would undermine the purposes of the UCCJEA, and would lead to the absurd result of establishing different standards for the courts in different states to determine which court has jurisdiction. For example, if section 61.515(1)(b) applied literally in this case, subsection (1)(a) would require a Florida court to determine, in part, that the child and both parents do not have a significant connection with this state,” but subsection (1)(b) would only requ...

...Before doing so, however, the court must consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction, by considering all relevant factors, including eight statutory factors. § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2022). Neither section 61.515 nor section 61.520 uses the phrase “home state,” much less uses it as a basis for Florida to cede its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to another state....

...a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships.’”); Sosa v. Pena, 351 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Pursuant to section 61.515(1), a Florida court retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction after making a custody determination until it determines both parents and the children do not reside in or have a significant connection to the state.”); Bock v....

...5th DCA 2016) (holding Florida was child’s home state and would remain child’s home state until it relinquished jurisdiction, thus its dismissal of custody petition and New York’s assumption of home state jurisdiction was improper); Steckler, 921 So. 2d at 744 (“Under section 61.515, Florida Statutes (2005), Florida retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody issues.”). 5  Appellee correctly asserts that the Florida court based its decision on more facts than merely the amount of time the child had been living in Illinois....

...attended school and therapy in Illinois, the child was involved in the community, and that continuity was important for the child. However, these statements do not support the Florida court’s decision to cede its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to Illinois under section 61.515(1)(a) or (b), nor could they have because Appellant still resided in Florida and the child still had significant contact with Florida....

...The court, however, may decline jurisdiction if it determines that the child or the parents do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is not available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. § 61.515(l)(a), Fla....

...t at the hearing. See Walls v. Sebastian, 914 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Because all parties were by then residing in Virginia, it is questionable whether the circuit court would have had jurisdiction to reach the issue, had it been raised. See § 61.515, Fla....

...ubstantive law will provide him with a more favorable result than if those issues are resolved in New York, where the child and legal father, who was judicially granted sole custody of the child, reside. Our analysis is directed by sections 61.515 and 61.520, Florida Statutes (2015). Under section 61.515(1), the trial court in the instant case has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction to make child custody determinations until: (a) A court of this state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person a...

...Thus, on March 30, 2017, when the trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing on DeStefanis’ motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, it had been over a year since the parties and the child had resided in Florida. Although it appears obvious that, based on these undisputed facts and pursuant to section 61.515(b), the trial court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to make child custody determinations, the trial court has not yet made that determination....