Thomas G. Caster, Jr. v. Christie Harcourt (2010)

ORDER RE CUSTODY JURISDICTION

On August 10, applicant filed a petition seeking custody of three minor children who, he alleged, had resided with him in this state for the past five years.   An initial hearing was scheduled on this petition for September 13.

On August 30, respondent filed a motion to dismiss this action on the basis that the custody of the children was the subject of a pending case in the state of Michigan, which had been the home state of the children when initial orders had entered as to their custody, and that there were active proceedings in that case (captioned “Christie Caster v. Thomas Caster, Case No. 2005900327-DM, Clare County Circuit Court, State of Michigan”).   Her motion was also scheduled for hearing on September 13.

This court contacted the clerk of that court and learned that throughout the summer of 2010, several hearings had been held before the Honorable Thomas P. McLaughlin in that forum.   On September 13, neither party appeared here in this venue.

On September 21, this court conducted a telephone conference with Judge McLaughlin, and was informed that proceedings are indeed underway on various motions before him in the Michigan court.

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, only one state's courts ought to be making custody decisions for children at any one time, pursuant to the provisions of that Act, Michigan, and not Connecticut, has the primary jurisdiction.

In lieu of a dismissal, and because the children have apparently lived in Connecticut for several years before the current dispute between their parents, this court will stay the Connecticut case until the present proceedings before Judge McLaughlin are concluded.   If the children stay in Michigan, this action will then be dismissed.   If they are returned to Connecticut, on the other hand, and if the Michigan court determines that this is a more appropriate forum in which to adjudicate future disputes as to their custody, the stay may be vacated and the case allowed to proceed.

Accordingly, this court stays further proceedings in this matter and orders that the motion to dismiss be docketed on December 6, 2010, for an update on the status of the Michigan proceedings.   Notice of this order is to be sent to all parties and to Judge McLaughlin forthwith.

Boland, J.

Boland, John D., J.