| | |
proceeding, there is less of a concern that one parent will take | | the child to another jurisdiction in an attempt to find a more | | favorable forum. Most of the jurisdictional problems generated by | | abducting parents should be solved by the prioritization of home | | State in Section 201 [Me. cite section 1745]; the exclusive, | | continuing jurisdiction provisions of Section 202 [Me. cite section | | 1746]; and the ban on modification in Section 203 [Me. cite section | | 1747]. For example, if a parent takes the child from the home | | State and seeks an original custody determination elsewhere, the | | stay-at-home parent has six months to file a custody petition under | | the extended home state jurisdictional provision of Section 201 | | [Me. cite section 1745], which will ensure that the case is | | retained in the home State. If a petitioner for a modification | | determination takes the child from the State that issued the | | original custody determination, another State cannot assume | | jurisdiction as long at the first State exercises exclusive, | | continuing jurisdiction. |
|
| | | Nonetheless, there are still a number of cases where parents, | | or their surrogates, act in a reprehensible manner, such as | | removing, secreting, retaining, or restraining the child. This | | section ensures that abducting parents will not receive an | | advantage for their unjustifiable conduct. If the conduct that | | creates the jurisdiction is unjustified, courts must decline to | | exercise jurisdiction that is inappropriately invoked by one of | | the parties. For example, if one parent abducts the child pre- | | decree and establishes a new home State, that jurisdiction will | | decline to hear the case. There are exceptions. If the other | | party has acquiesced in the court's jurisdiction, the court may | | hear the case. Such acquiescence may occur by filing a pleading | | submitting to the jurisdiction, or by not filing in the court | | that would otherwise have jurisdiction under this Act. | | Similarly, if the court that would have jurisdiction finds that | | the court of this State is a more appropriate forum, the court | | may hear the case. |
|
| | | This section applies to those situations where jurisdiction | | exists because of the unjustified conduct of the person seeking | | to invoke it. If, for example, a parent in the State with | | exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under Section 202 [Me. cite | | section 1746] has either restrained the child from visiting with | | the other parent, or has retained the child after visitation, and | | seeks to modify the decree, this section in inapplicable. The | | conduct of restraining or retaining the child did not create | | jurisdiction. Jurisdiction existed under this Act without regard | | to the parent's conduct. Whether a court should decline to hear | | the parent's request to modify is a matter of local law. |
|
| | | The focus in this section is on the unjustified conduct of the | | person who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. A |
|
|
