In Re Adoption Of S.R.C.-Q.

367 P.3d 1276 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 2012, M gave birth to S.R.C.-Q. in Wisconsin, where M and the child lived with the maternal grandmother. A paternity test confirmed F's parentage of S.R.C.-Q. Between March and May 2014, M and S.R.C.-Q. visited Kansas multiple times to spend time with F. In May 2014, M relocated to Kansas with S.R.C.-Q. to reside with F. On May 21, 2014, F filed a petition for protection from abuse, alleging that M hit him in the head with a knife, threatened to harm herself, and was otherwise dangerous to herself and to the child. The district court placed S.R.C.-Q. in the temporary/emergency custody of F. The State of Kansas filed criminal charges against M, resulting in her arrest and incarceration. On July 10, 2014, a CINC case was initiated and temporary emergency orders were entered on July 14, 2014, placing S.R.C.-Q. in State custody. M entered a plea in her criminal case and was sentenced to unsupervised probation. M then moved back to Wisconsin to reside with S.R.C-Q.'s maternal grandmother. M challenged the district court's jurisdiction over S.R.C.-Q. pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The district court sent a letter and relevant information to the Circuit Court in Winnebago, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin court and the Kansas court held a hearing, and both courts agreed that although Wisconsin was S.R.C.-Q.'s home state, Wisconsin was an inconvenient forum for the proceedings. Wisconsin released jurisdiction to Kansas to determine all matters. Upon M's stipulation to Kansas' jurisdiction and F's entry of a no-contest statement agreeing to Kansas' jurisdiction, the district court adjudicated S.R.C.-Q. a CINC on October 8, 2014. The district court approved the placement of S.R.C.-Q. with the paternal grandparents in Kansas. In January 2015, M asked the district court to determine whether the ICPC applied to the placement of S.R.C.-Q. in Wisconsin. The district court determined the ICPC did not apply when a court sends a child to reside with a parent in another state. On March 13, 2015, the district court received Wisconsin's assessment of Mother's home pursuant to the requirements of the ICPC, and Wisconsin denied placement of S.R.C.-Q. with M, citing concerns about M's cohabitating boyfriend. The child was placed in M’s custody. F and S.R.C.-Q.'s guardian ad litem appealed. F and the guardian claim that under the ICPC an adverse home study of M's home in Wisconsin pursuant to the ICPC by the State of Wisconsin barred the district court from awarding custody of the child to M.