Jurisdiction in Child Visitation Dispute

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland was recently asked to determine which state had jurisdiction over a visitation dispute between a Maryland mother and an Illinois grandfather.  The grandfather was originally given visitation by an order of the Illinois court with the consent of the mother.   

Nicole Britton gave birth to Savanna Marie Britton on January 18, 1998 in the state of Illinois.  Savanna’s father was Michael Craig Meier but he died in a work related accident before Savanna’s birth.  Nicole and Michael never married.

After Michael’s death, his estate received a workers compensation award on behalf of his heir and daughter, Savanna.  The estate also filed a wrongful death suit.  Michael’s father was appointed administrator of his estate.

After DNA testing confirmed that Michael was Savanna’s father, Michael’s father, Kerry C. Meier, filed a petition in Illinois for grandparent visitation.  Before a hearing was held, the parties entered into an agreement providing for a visitation schedule.  With the parties consent, the Illinois court entered an order granting visitation to the grandfather on “the third Saturday or Sunday of every month for four hours at the residence of Savanna Britton.”

Before the Illinois order was entered, Nicole moved with Savanna to Maryland.  On or about June 25, 2000, the grandfather exercised his visitation rights in Maryland.  Shortly after that visit, Nicole filed a motion for a protective order in Illinois stating that the grandfather, during his visitation with Savanna, had tried to obtain a hair sample from Savanna to conduct a second DNA test. 

In October, 2000, the grandfather was denied visitation with Savanna as a result of a petition filed by Nicole alleging the same facts as in her motion filed in June, 2000.  On October 23, 2000, Nicole filed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland a motion to enroll and then modify the Illinois visitation order by terminating all visitation.  The basis for her request  was that the grandfather had questioned whether his son was Savanna’s father, and that once it was established that he was, the grandfather’s only interest in Savanna was that she was the only other heir to receive the proceeds of the wrongful death case that had been filed.  Nicole claimed that the grandfather was interested in either disproving paternity or if he was unsuccessful in doing that, controlling any funds that might belong to Savanna.  The Circuit Court granted the grandfather’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied Nicole’s motion to enroll the Illinois order and to modify visitation.  Nicole appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.

At issue was whether the courts of Illinois or the courts of Maryland had jurisdiction over the child visitation issues involved in this litigation.  The Court held that the Circuit Court was correct and that Illinois, as the state of initial jurisdiction, had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. However, the Circuit Court erred in failing to contact the court in Illinois to determine whether it wished to decline jurisdiction in favor of Maryland, the state where Savanna resides.

The Court pointed out that the case was covered by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (although no kidnapping was involved) and that under this act, “[a] court of a State may not modify a visitation determination made by another State unless the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction to modify such determination or has declined to exercise jurisdiction to modify such determination.”  Since Illinois had jurisdiction over the matter, a Maryland court could not modify the Illinois order unless the Illinois court declined jurisdiction.  The lower court should have contacted the Illinois court to determine if that court wished to decline jurisdiction before dismissing the case.

The Court stated:  “Had the circuit court contacted the Illinois court before deferring to that court and dismissing the case, Illinois might have, under the circumstances of this case, declined jurisdiction in favour of Maryland.  Indeed, there is every reason to believe it would have.  It is Maryland, not Illinois, that now is Savanna’s home state.  It is Maryland, not Illinois, that now has the most significant connection with Savanna.  And it is Maryland, not Illinois, where evidence concerning Savanna’s ‘future care, protection, training, and personal relationships’ is probably most available.”

The case was remanded to the circuit court so that it can consult with the Illinois court to determine whether that court will decline jurisdiction over the case.

Nicole Britton v. Kerry C. Meier, No. 765, September Term 2001, in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, filed December 20, 2002.

[Return to Family Law Update Page]