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