Greenlaw v. Smith,
869 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1994)



Procedural:Petitioner father sought review of a judgment from the Court of Appeals (Washington), which reversed the trial court's order revising a decree of dissolution and granted petitioner residential placement of the child.

Facts: H and W were married in 1978. Their son, Alex, was born in 1978.The marriage dissolved in 1982 when the boy was 3.5 years old. W was granted custody. In 1985, W accepted a 3 year job assignment in Germany with the U.S. Army. W placed the boy in a German speaking boarding school from the ages of 7-10. During this time the boy only saw his mother irregularly on weekends and holidays. W and the boy returned to the U.S in 1988 and lived in California. From 1988 to 1990 the boy and the mother moved four times, the boy attended three different schools and in 1990 the mother began attending law school in San Jose. The boy spent that time living with the mother's former boyfriend in Berkeley. The boy only saw his mother on the weekends and during school vacation periods. "While in Tacoma visiting the father, the child began seeing a counselor who ultimately recommended that the boy live with the father. Based on the comments of the counselor the boy was in serious trouble as the mother had virtually abandoned the child. W denied allegations of abandonment and neglect. In 1991, H petitioned the Pierce County Court in Washington State to get custody. W responded by stating that California had jurisdiction. The court denied W's motion because Washington had significant contacts with the child and because an emergency existed. W appealed. Eventually the Court of Appeals reversed holding that Washington did not have subject matter jurisdiction. This appeal resulted.

Issue:Does a state continue to have jurisdiction to modify its own custody orders after the child and the custodial parent are residents of another state, but the noncustodial parent continues to reside in the state and the child continues to have some contact with the state?

Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed.
The Superior Court, Pierce County, D. Gary Steiner, J., determined that it had jurisdiction to hear case and changed residential placement of child. Mother appealed. The Court of Appeals,, reversed, and father petitioned for review. The Supreme Court, held that: (1) jurisdiction to modify custody decree continued with decree state so long as parent or other contestant continued to reside in decree state and child continued to have more than slight contact with decree state, including continued visitation with parent residing in decree state, and (2) trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mother's request that it decline to exercise jurisdiction on basis that California was more convenient forum.

Analysis:The trial court must make a distinction between jurisdiction to determine an initial custody order and to modify an existing order. Both the UCCJA and PKPA presume that the state that entered the order continues to have jurisdiction to modify its order unless it loses or declines jurisdiction. Based on this presumption and the policy reasons of preventing forum shopping and the instability of custody orders, the decree state should continue to have jurisdiction if one of the parents continues to live in the state and the child continues to have some connection with the state.