Litigation

It is appropriate for a foreign court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction where all of the parties have relocated to the foreign jurisdiction and where the defendant-mother fled the original jurisdiction on the eve of trial. McGovern et al. v. McGovern, FA030194664S, Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford, September 22, 2003.

The mother and maternal grandmother litigated a grandparent visitation issue in Arizona. The Arizona court held that, although the mother was not acting in the best interest of the subject child, it would not order a specific visitation schedule because the maternal grandmother had not seen the child in 2 years and because all parties had relocated to Connecticut. Thereafter, the maternal grandmother filed the Arizona order in Connecticut and sought a visitation order in Connecticut. The mother objected, arguing that the Connecticut court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and she was entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, the mother argued that it was not appropriate for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. The court disagreed and concluded that it was appropriate to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. It considered that the mother was represented by counsel during the entire litigation in Arizona and that the entire proceeding would have been completed in Arizona if the mother had not fled the jurisdiction with the child the evening prior to the visitation litigation. The court noted that the issue of grandparent visitation is important enough to warrant a full hearing and declined to grant the mother's summary judgment motion.