The Court of Appeals in Hipps v. Cabrera, specifically addressed continuing jurisdiction in the child custody litigation and its limitations.

The Child Custody Order in dispute, and litigation had bestowed physical custody with the father, limited visitation schedule for the mother, and the father had retained the tie break or final decision-making authority.  Within one year of the order being issued, the father had moved the children to NY and mother’s visitation rights were gradually curtailed.  By the time the mother had court involved the matter to restore regular visits, the children had been away from the District for significant time essentially ending the court’s continuing jurisdictions over the matter.

Appellant Hipps contended among other things that the trial court had erred or abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction over the custody order pertaining to the children in light of the Father’s moving the children to New York and away from the District.

Specifically, the trial court had ruled after an evidentiary hearing that for over three years, the children had been in New York, where they had developed routine and an entirely new life, enrolled in school and acclimated to their environment.  Moreover, it was not in their best interests to disrupt this routine and order them back to the District.   

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court declining continuing jurisdiction over the children as by then the children had been away from the District for over six years (by the time appeals were filed) and although the Mother lived in the District, the children had no other contact with the District of Columbia.

The DC Code provides that the District of Columbia courts have “exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” over a child custody determination they initially make unless, inter alia:

(1) A court of the District determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and any person acting as a parent have a significant connection with the District and that substantial evidence is no longer available in the District concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationship[.]

D.C. Code § 16-4602.02 (a)(1).

The trial also had found and ruled that the father had not violated the original custody order by moving the children to NY.  The Father’s action in moving the children to New York even though was technically not in compliance with the court order was sufficiently in good faith, and ultimately the move turned out to be in the best interests of the children.

The outcome of this case would have been drastically different if the Mother had sought to enforce her visitation rights promptly and without delay and also if the best interests of the children were better served in the District.

Refer to our Washington DC Child Custody page for more details on this subject.