Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Kenneth John Christensen v. Songul Seckin (5/14/2021) sp-7530

Kenneth John Christensen v. Songul Seckin (5/14/2021) sp-7530, 486 P.3d 181

          Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

          Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

          303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

          corrections@akcourts.us.  



                      THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                    



KENNETH  JOHN  CHRISTENSEN,                                        )  

                                                                   )    Supreme  Court  No.  S-17749  

                               Appellant,                          )  

                                                                                                        

                                                                   )    Superior Court No. 3PA-18-01110CI  

          v.                                                       )  

                                                                                            

                                                                   )    O P I N I O N  

                  

SONGUL SECKIN,                                                     )  

                                                                                                         

                                                                   )    No. 7530 - May 14, 2021  

                               Appellee.                           )  

                                                                   )  



                                                                                                          

                                                

                     Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                        

                     Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge.  



                                                                                                              

                     Appearances:            Darryl  L.  Jones,  Law  Office  of  Darryl  L.  

                                                                                                 

                     Jones, Palmer, for Appellant. Justin Eschbacher, Eschbacher  

                                                                      

                     & Eschbacher, Anchorage, for Appellee.  



                                                                                      

                     Before:  Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Carney,  

                                               

                     and Borghesan, Justices.  



                                       

                     CARNEY, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                            

                     The superior court denied a father's motion to modify a foreign court's  



                                                                                                                                    

custody determination because it did not believe it had subject matter jurisdiction to  



                                                                                                                                 

modify the order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act  



                                                                                           

(UCCJEA).  The father appeals, arguing that the superior court erred when it held that  



                                                                                                                                    

it did not have jurisdiction.   Because the superior court correctly determined that it  



                                                                                 

lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody order, we affirm.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

II.                  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                         



                     A.                  Facts  



                                          Songul Seckin, who was born in Turkey, and Kenneth Christensen married                                                                                                                                    



in August 2012. Soon afterward Seckin returned to Turkey; she was pregnant with their                                                                                                                                                                         



child.  



                                          Seckin gave birth to their child in Turkey in January 2013.                                                                                                                           While Seckin   



and   the   child   were   in   Turkey,  she   and   Christensen   "reached   a   mutual   divorce  



agreement."  



                                         Christensen traveled to Turkey for the divorce proceedings.  Christensen   



stated in court that Seckin would "overtake the custody" of their child, and agreed to                                                                                                                                                                               



visitation and child support. In an August 2017 order, the Turkish court awarded Seckin                                                                                                                                                                



custody, noting that "the parties have agreed" on visitation, child support, and her                                                                                                                                                                            



custody of the child.                         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1   Seckin claims  

                                          Seckin and the child returned to Alaska in December 2017.                                                                                                                                                     



her return was "on a trial basis" and that she agreed to return only after Christensen  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



promised to provide her food, housing, and a job.  She also asserts that she made it clear  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



to Christensen that she was only returning because "finances were tight" and she "owed"  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



him "the opportunity to develop a relationship with [their child]."  She claims that she  



told Christensen she did not intend to renew her own relationship with him.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                         Christensen disputes Seckin's claim that she returned to Alaska on a trial  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



basis. He claims that she "told [him] that she wanted to live in Alaska permanently" and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



"to work on [their] relationship."  

                                                            



                     1                   The precise date of Seckin and the child's return to Alaska is unclear.                                                                                                                                                               



 Seckin   filed   child   custody   jurisdiction   affidavits   listing  December   8   and   16.     And  

Christensen stated in an affidavit that Seckin and the child returned on December 15.                                                                                                                                                                        



                                                                                                                                  -2-                                                                                                                       7530
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                            In early January 2018 Seckin moved to register the Turkish divorce decree                                                                  



                                                                                                                                                2  

in Alaska superior court, and filed a number of supporting documents.                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                    Christensen did  



                                                                                                                                                                              

not oppose registration of the Turkish divorce decree.  The superior court registered the  



                                               

divorce decree in late January.  



                                                                                                                                                                          

                            In  June  Seckin  and  Christensen  filed  a  stipulated  motion  giving  legal  



                                                                                                                                                                           

custody of their child to Seckin. In the motion they "acknowledge[d]" that Seckin's legal  



                                                                                                                                                                           

custody was in their child's best interests. The motion recited that each of them had been  



                                                                                                                                                                             

able to consult with counsel and that they were entering into the "stipulation freely and  



                                                                                     

voluntarily without duress and of sound mind."  



                                                                                                                                                                           

                            Seckin's  trial  run  in  Alaska  "did  not  go  well."                                                        Seckin  alleges  that  



                                                                                                                                                                             

Christensen kept her and the child as "financial hostages," had a key to her home and  



                                                                                                                                                                                

entered at will, and did not pay her for most of her work at his restaurant.  According to  



Seckin, Christensen stated he did not have to pay her "because he was housing us and  



                                                                                                                                                        

paying for food."  Seckin also claims that she did not receive any child support from  



Christensen.  



                                                                                                                                                                             

                            Seckin also states that Christensen "had little interest in" their child and  



                                                                                                                                                        

rarely spent any time with the child.  She alleges that Christensen "used inappropriate  



                                                                                                                                                                             

corporal punishment"on the child, making the child fear him.  Seckin also asserts that  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

Christensen harassed her, making sexual advances "despite [her]  repeated refusal."  



                                                                                                                                                                        

Seckin alleges that when she attempted to stop an advance by pushing Christensen away,  



                                                                                                                                                                               

she fell and injured her shoulder, which required surgical repair.  Christensen denies all  



                          

of Seckin's allegations.  



              2             See    AS    25.30.430(a)    (allowing   for    registration    of    child    custody  



determination by court of another state); AS 25.30.380(a) (listing information to be                                                                                           

included in first pleading or affidavit in child custody proceeding).                                                                        



                                                                                       -3-                                                                                7530
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                 Seckin returned to Turkey with the child on January 28, 2019. Christensen                                                                                                                                        



    purchased both of them one-way plane tickets.                                                                                                                         He asserts that he believed that she                                                                                



    would receive treatment for her shoulder and return to Alaska once she was cleared to                                                                                                                                                                               



    fly.  



                                                 Once in Turkey, Seckin informed Christensen that she and the child "were                                                                                                                                                             



    staying."     Seckin   returned   to   Alaska   in   March   2019   to   retrieve   personal   property.   



    Despite Christensen's request, she did not bring the child with her.                                                                                                                                                                 Seckin claims that   



    Christensen "had no issues" with the child, and her, remaining in Turkey.                                                                                                                                                                                  Christensen  



    responds that he "never voluntarily agreed to [Seckin] moving to Turkey or to [the child]                                                                                                                                                                                          



    being raised there."                       



                          B.                     Proceedings  



                                                 On April 1, 2019, Christensen filed a motion to modify the Turkish custody                                                                                                                                                     



    order, seeking interim child custody.  Seckin opposed the custody modification.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                                                 A standing master held a hearing on the motion in November. In his report                                                                                                                                                            



    afterward, themaster questioned                                                                              whether thecourt                                           had jurisdictiontomodifytheTurkish                                                                  



    order, noting that "[i]t is not clear that an Alaska court has jurisdiction to modify a                                                                                                                                                                                                          



    custody decree from a foreign country unless certain specific requirements are met,"                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                         3  for those requirements.  

    citing AS 25.30.320                                                                                      



                                              Alaska Statute 25.30.320 authorizes an Alaska court to modify a child  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 custody determination made by a court of another state only when the Alaska court has  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under AS 25.30.300(a)(1), (2), or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 (3), and:   (1) the court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 continuing jurisdiction or that the Alaska court would be a more convenient forum, or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                          3                      Although   the   standing   master   referred   to   "AS   25.30.330,"   he   quoted  



    AS  25.30.320  in  the  body  of  the  report.  



                                                                                                                                                  -4-                                                                                                                                                   7530  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

 (2)  either the Alaska court or other state's court determines that neither the child nor a                                                    



                                                                    4  

parent presently resides in the other state.                                                                                                 

                                                                      The standing master noted that Alaska law did  



                                                                                                                                               

not specifically address how to treat a foreign country when it considered jurisdiction in  



                                                                                                                                         

child custody matters. The master referred to AS25.30.810, which requires Alaska courts  



                                                                                                                                       

enforcing custody orders to "treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United  



                                                                                                       5  

                                                                 

 States for the purpose of applying AS 25.30.400-25.30.590." 



                       The master concluded that if AS 25.30.810 applied and required Alaska  

                                                                                                                                       



courts to treat the Turkish court as another state's court, "it appears that this court does  

                                                                                     



not have jurisdiction to modify the Turkish custody order."  The master then analyzed  

                                                                                                                                   



Christensen'smotion, assuming that theTurkish order was equivalent to onefromanother  

                                                                                                                                      



 state.  He first observed that the child was not in Alaska for the six months before the  

                                                                                                                                             



motion was filed:   the child "was in Turkey for the past four months" and when the  

                                                                                                                                             



motion was filed, "both [Seckin and the child] were living in Turkey."  But because the  

                                                                                                                                             



master had raised the jurisdiction issue sua sponte, he gave the parties an opportunity to  

                                                                                                                                               



 submit briefs "directly to the Superior Court for review" before a final order issued.  

                                                                                                                                                    



 Seckin did not file a brief.  

                                    



                       In  his  brief,  Christensen  argued  that  Seckin  "agreed  to  Alaska  having  

                                                                                                                                      



jurisdiction when she registered the [Turkish] [j]udgment in Alaska and subsequently  

                                                                                                                            



modified that custody judgment by way of stipulation and a Child Custody Jurisdiction  

                                                                                                                               

Affidavit  of  the  parties."                  He  argued,  based  on  AS  25.30.310,6   that  Alaska  gained  

                                                                                                                                       



             4          AS  25.30.320(a)(1)-(2).   



             5          AS  25.30.810(a).   AS  25.30.400-25.30.590  govern  enforcement  of  custody  



  decrees.  



             6          AS   25.30.310(a)(1)-(2)   (granting  Alaska   court  that  has  made   a   custody  



  determination   "exclusive,   continuing   jurisdiction   over   the   determination"   until   it  

                                                                                                                           (continued...)  



                                                                       -5-                                                               7530
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

 exclusive,  continuing   jurisdiction   when   "the   parties   filed   and   the   court   adopt[ed]   a  



 custody modification stipulation on or about June 12, 2018."                                                                        



                                 The superior court disagreed and ruled that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to                                                                                                       



 modify custody or support. Christensen moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court                                                                                                                 



 had jurisdiction based on its acceptance of the stipulated motion giving Seckin legal                                                                                                                   



 custody.   Reconsideration was denied.                                                         Christensen appeals.   



 III.            STANDARD OF REVIEW                            



                                 Whether a superior court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to                                                                                                    



 modify a custody decree from a court in another country is a question of law that we                                                                                                                         



                                        7  

 review de novo.                            



 IV.             DISCUSSION  



                                 Alaska   has   adopted   the   Uniform   Child   Custody   Jurisdiction   and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 Enforcement  Act.8                                 But  Alaska  did  not  adopt  the  uniform law's  section  addressing  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



jurisdiction over custody orders from a foreign country; Alaska's version of the UCCJEA  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



 addresses only enforcement of such orders in its "International Application" section,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 AS 25.30.810.9  

                                        



                 6               (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

   determines (1) "that neither the child [or] the child and one parent . . . have a significant  

                                                                                                                                                                                

   connection with" Alaska or (2) "that neither the child, nor a parent. . . resides in this  

                      

   state").  



                   7               Mouritsen v. Mouritsen, 459 P.3d 476, 479 (Alaska 2020).  

                                                                                                                                                                   



                   8               AS 25.30.300-.910; Atkins v. Vigil , 59 P.3d 255, 257 (Alaska 2002); see  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

   also Fox v. Grace, 435 P.3d 883, 884 n.1 (Alaska 2018) ("Alaska has adopted and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

   codified the UCCJEA in AS 25.30.300-.910.").  

                                                                          



                   9               Compare AS 25.30.810(a)  ("A court of this state shall treat a foreign  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

   country  as  if  it  were  a  state  of  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  applying  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                                                         -6-                                                                                             7530
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                              Christensen asserts that we should nonetheless be guided by the UCCJEA                                                                                                                                                      



 to decide this case, and refers us to AS 25.30.810(a), which establishes the requirements                                                                                                                                                                   



 to enforce a custody order from another country by treating it as if it were issued by a                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 sister state.                          Because the Legislature did not adopt the relevant section of the UCCJEA,                                                                                                                                                      



 we do not decide whether an Alaska court should treat a foreign country "just as it would                                                                                                                                                                                       



 . . . a state of the United States," as Christensen urges.                                                                                                                                          But even if we accepted his                                                               



 invitation, Christensen has failed to prove that the superior court erred when it denied his                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 motion to modify the custody decree issued in his Turkish divorce.                                                                                                                                      



                                              The UCCJEA directs states to determine jurisdictional issues relating to                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                  10       The court in a child's home state  

 custody orders by assigning children "home states."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 has principal jurisdiction over custody matters.11                                                                                                                            Christensen claims that Alaska had  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 become the child's home state by the time he filed his motion to modify in April 2019.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 In  the  alternative,  he  argues  that  Alaska  had  exclusive,  continuing  modification  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



jurisdiction in April 2019 because of its approval of the June 2018 stipulation.  Under  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 either theory, he argues, the court had jurisdiction to decide the April 2019 motion.  We  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 consider each argument in turn.  

                                                                                            



                       9                      (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                NIF . C               HILD   CUSTODY  

    AS 25.30.400-25.30.590['s enforcement provisions]."),  with  U 

    JURISDICTION & ENF 'T ACT (UCCJEA) § 105(a), 9 U.L.A. Part 1A 488 (1997) ("A court                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                         

    of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a State of the United States for the                                                                                                                                                                                             

    purpose   of   applying   [Articles]   1   [General   Provisions]   and   2   [Jurisdiction]."   (first  

    alteration in original)).                 



                           10                   Atkins , 59 P.3d at 257 (referencing AS 25.30.300).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                           11                    Id.  

                                                            



                                                                                                                                                  -7-                                                                                                                                    7530
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                           A.	                       ChristensenAndSeckin's                                                                                    StipulationDidNot                                                                GiveAlaskaJurisdiction                              

                                                     To Modify The Turkish Custody Order.                                                                                                       



                                                     Christensen asserts that Alaska was the child's home state and obtained                                                                                                                                                                                       



jurisdiction in June 2018 when the superior court accepted his and Seckin's stipulated                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 motion giving Seckin legal custody.  He claims that because the Alaska court accepted   



 the stipulation, jurisdiction "transferred" from Turkey to Alaska.                                                                                                                                                                                                      As a result of this                                           



 "transfer," Christensen argues that the Alaska court was able to, and did, "modify[]" the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 original Turkish order when it accepted the stipulation and had jurisdiction to modify it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 further   when   Christensen   filed   his motion to                                                                                                                                    modify   in April 2019.                                                                         Christensen   is  



 incorrect.  



                                                     An Alaska court may obtain jurisdiction over, and subsequently modify, the                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                12  

 custody order of another state only by satisfying the requirements of AS 25.30.320.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 Christensen and Seckin's stipulated motion did not ask the court to modify custody; it  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 makes no mention of any existing order.  The "stipulated motion" simply restated what  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



 the Turkish decree already provided:   that Seckin had custody of the child.   Neither  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 Christensen nor Seckin indicated that the stipulation was intended to modify the Turkish  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 order nor did they refer to AS 25.30.320's requirements; their stipulation could not vest  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                              12                        See   AS 25.30.320(1)-(2) (requiring that court asked to modify another                                                                                                                                                                                        



     state's   custody   order   have   "jurisdiction   to   make   an   initial   determination   under  

    AS   25.30.300(a)(1),   (2),   or   (3),"   and   find   that   either:     (1)   the   court   of   other   state  

    determined it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or Alaska court would be                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

    more convenient forum; or (2) neither the child nor a parent presently resides in other                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

     state).  



                                                                                                                                                                        -8-	                                                                                                                                                       7530
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                                                                                                                  13  

the court with "the legal authority . . . to hear and decide" their case                                             when the law denies       



    14  

it.      



                       Christensen also failed to present any evidence that granting Seckin legal  

                                                                                                                                                



custody modified the Turkish order.  The only information Christensen provided to the  

                                                                                                                                                   



superior court about Turkish family law was a printout from a blog post, which asserted  

                                                                                                                                          



Turkish law does not distinguish between sole and joint custody:  "In Turkish law there  

                                                                                                                                                



is only 'sole custody' . . . 'joint custody' does not exist."   Information from such a  

                                                                                                                                                      



dubious source does not satisfy Christensen's burden to present evidence to support his  

                                                                                                                                                   

motion.15  In any event, the blog post shows that the stipulation conformed to the Turkish  

                                                                                                                                           



order  rather  than  modified  it.                        As  a  result,  the  superior  court's  acceptance  of  the  

                                                                                                                                                  

stipulation appears to be part of its recognition and enforcement jurisdiction.16   The joint  

                                                                                                                                                



             13         Richter v. Richter              , 330 P.3d 934, 937 (Alaska 2014) (discussing subject                               



 matter jurisdiction).   



             14         Robertson v. Riplett, 194 P.3d 382, 385 (Alaska 2008) ("Alaska Statute  

                                                                                                                                            

  25.30.320 . . . denies Alaska courts authority to modify child custody decrees of another  

                                                                                                                                           

  state unless conditions specified in section .320 are met."); see also Prickett v. Prickett,  

                                                                                                                                          

  167 P.3d 661, 665 (Wyo. 2007) (affirming that parents' stipulation could not transfer  

                                                                                                                                           

 jurisdiction over child custody proceedings from one state to another);  cf. Interiano- 

                                                                                                                                      

 Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 883 N.W.2d 676, 687 (Neb. 2016) ("Parties cannot  

                                                                                                                                             

  confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a judicial tribunal by either acquiescence or  

                                                                                                                                                    

  consent . . . .").  

                       



             15          See Maxwell v. Maxwell, 37 P.3d 424, 426 (Alaska 2001) (noting that in a  

                                                                                                                                                       

  child  custody  modification  proceeding  the  "moving  parent  bears  the  burden"  of  

                                                                                                                                                    

 presenting  evidence in  support of his or  her  motion to  justify  modifying  custody);  

                                                                                                                                       

  Ozaltin v. Ozaltin, 708 F.3d 355, 370 (2d Cir. 2013) (relying on expert testimony to note  

                                                                                                                                                 

 that powers of Turkish court in divorce include power to remove custodial rights from  

                                                                                                                                                

  one parent and give sole custody to the other).  

                                                                                     



             16          See AS 25.30.450(b) (allowing Alaska court to "recognize and enforce" a  

                                                                                                                                                       

 registered child custody order).  

                                             



                                                                          -9-                                                                  7530
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

stipulation did not transfer jurisdiction from Turkey to Alaska, and we are not persuaded                                                                                                                                                                  



that it modified the Turkish custody order.                                                                            



                      B.	                   The Alaska Court Did Not Have Jurisdiction To Modify The Turkish                                                                                                                                    

                                            Order When Christensen Filed His Motion To Modify Custody.                                                                                                                                   



                                           Becausethestipulated                                                    custody motiondid                                              not transfer jurisdictionto Alaska                                                  



in   June   2018,   we   must   consider   whether   the   requirements   of   AS   25.30.320  were  



otherwise met in April 2019 so that the Alaska court could modify the Turkish court's                                                                                                                                                                                



custody order.                                     Even when Alaska is a child's home state, it is only after satisfying                                                                                                                                   



AS 25.30.320(1) or (2) that an Alaska court can exercise jurisdiction to modify another                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                    17  

state's custody                                 order.                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                           As theparty seeking modification,Christensen "bears theburden"  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         18  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

of presenting evidence in support of his motion to modify the Turkish order. 



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                            Christensen has not met his burden.  Even if Alaska was the child's home  



                                                                                                                                            19  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

state in April 2019, as Christensen argues,                                                                                                        AS 25.30.320 would authorize an Alaska  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

court  to  modify  the  Turkish  order  only  if  Turkey  "determine[d]  it  no  longer  ha[d]  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

exclusive, continuing jurisdiction"orconcluded that Alaska"wouldbeamoreconvenient  



                         17                   AS25.30.320 (prohibiting Alaskacourtfrommodifyingout-of-statedecree                                                                                                                                                       



   unless Alaska has initial jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300(a)(1), (2), or (3)                                                                                                                                                               and  either one   

   of two conditions is met);                                                           Robertson, 194 P.3d at 385-86 (holding that Alaska lacked                                                                                                                     

   modification jurisdiction over Ohio decree even though Alaska was children's home                                                                                                                                                                                     

   state under UCCJEA).                 



                         18                   Maxwell, 37 P.3d at 426.  

                                                                                                                                 



                         19                   We need not determine whether Alaska met the jurisdictional requirements  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

   of AS 25.30.300(a)(1), (2), or (3) because even if they were met, Christensen failed to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

   satisfy AS 25.30.320(1) or (2).  

                                                                                            



                                                                                                                                         -10-	                                                                                                                              7530
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

             20  

forum,"         or if an Alaska or Turkish court found that "neither the child, nor [Seckin] . . .                                             

presently resides in [Turkey]."                   21  



                      Christensen failed to present any evidence to the superior court that Turkey  

                                                                                                                                    



had made either determination set out in AS 25.30.320(1).  Christensen also failed to  

                                                                                                                                  



prove that neither Seckin nor the child was residing in Turkey in April 2019.  In fact  

                                                                                                                                         



Christensen admitted that Seckin had returned to Turkey with the child in January 2019,  

                                                                                                                                      



and it was undisputed that Seckin and the child were living in Turkey when he filed his  

                                                                                                                                           



motion to modify custody.  Nor did he establish that the child's presence in Turkey was  

                                                                                                                                         



temporary. The standing master accordingly found that the child and Seckin were "living  

                                                                                                                                    



in Turkey," and that AS 25.30.320(2)'s requirement to modify jurisdiction was not met.  

                                                                                                                                                 



Because the requirements of AS 25.30.320 were not met, the superior court correctly held  

                                                                                                                                         



that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the Turkish court custody determination.  

                                                                                                       



           C.	        Seckin's  Filing  Of  Child  Custody  Jurisdiction  Affidavits  Did  Not  

                                                                                                                                        

                      Confer Jurisdiction On The Superior Court.  

                                                                                         



                      Christensen also argues that Seckin's filing of child custody jurisdiction  

                                                                                                                            



affidavits "represented that the Palmer Superior Court had jurisdiction over the custody  

                                                                                                                                   



of the minor child."  He is mistaken.  

                                             



                      A parent may register a child custody determination from another state in  

                                                                                                                                            

Alaska22  by lodging certain documents with the Alaska court.23                                              One of the required  

                                                                                                                                 



            20         AS  25.30.320(1).  



            21         AS  25.30.320(2).  



            22         AS   25.30.430(a)   ("A   child   custody   determination   issued   by   a   court of  



  another  state  may  be  registered  in  this  state,  with  or  without  a  simultaneous  request  for  

  enforcement.").  



            23         AS  25.30.430(a)(1)-(3)  (listing  documents  including  letter  requesting  

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         (continued...)  



                                                                     -11-	                                                             7530
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

documents is a child custody jurisdiction affidavit describing where and with whom the                                                                 

child has lived during the last five years.                             24  



                        Seckin first filed an affidavit when she registered the Turkish court custody  

                                                                                                                                               



order.  She filed a second affidavit when she and Christensen filed their joint stipulation  

                                                                                                                                         



granting her legal custody of the child.  Contrary to Christensen's argument, neither of  



these affidavits "represented that the Palmer Superior Court had jurisdiction over the  

                                                                                                                                                      



custody  of"  their  child.                     Instead,  the  affidavits  merely  supplied  the  court  with  the  

                                                                                                                                                      



information specified in AS 25.30.380 and required under AS 25.30.430(a)(1)-(3) to  

                                                                                                                                                        



engage in the child custody proceeding before it.  

                                                                                    



V.          CONCLUSION  



                        The superior court's holding that it did not have jurisdiction to modify the  

                                                                                                                                                       



Turkish court's custody determination is AFFIRMED.  

                                                                          



            23          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                

 registration, copies of determination to be registered, and names and addresses of person  

                                                                                                                      

  seeking registration and parent who has been awarded custody).  



             24          AS 25.30.380(a).  

                                 



                                                                           -12-                                                                    7530
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC