| MERLE H. PALTROW v. KENNETH C. PALTROW | | | | custody. Although, in our judgment, it would have |
| Court of Special Appeals of Maryland | | | | been more appropriate to dismiss the proceeding |
| September 8, 1977 | | | | rather than to grant appellee's Motion Ne |
| The father is a psychiatrist, practicing in Oregon; | | | | Recipiatur, we find no reversible error. |
| the mother is an instructor in psychiatric nursing | | | | Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from a reading |
| at Hospital in Baltimore. The parties were married | | | | of the Uniform Act that even absent a motion, |
| in 1960 and were divorced in Oregon on | | | | the court sua sponte could have considered the |
| September 1, 1972. Mrs. Paltrow was originally | | | | question of the exercise vel non of jurisdiction. |
| awarded custody of the four minor children. Under | | | | We think it plain from the statement of purposes |
| an Order of Modification, dated December 1, 1975, | | | | and the other sections cited that an equity court |
| custody of first child was awarded to Father. On | | | | in a proceeding relating to child custody has an |
| April 29, 1976, by a "stipulated order," second | | | | affirmative duty to examine the question of the |
| child's custody was also transferred to the father. | | | | pendency of proceedings elsewhere in Maryland or |
| Both orders were adopted by the Circuit Court | | | | in other jurisdictions and should do so of its own |
| for Multnomah County, Oregon. Prior to the | | | | motion even if the issue is not raised by the |
| entry of the Order dated December 1, 1975, Mrs. | | | | parties themselves. We also consider it not only |
| Paltrow informed the court of her intention to | | | | proper but necessary for a court of this State to |
| move from Oregon to Maryland. The Oregon | | | | determine, as a preliminary matter, whether to |
| court recited in the Order that the move was not | | | | exercise its jurisdiction where it becomes |
| in the best interests of the children, but, | | | | apparent that a proceeding concerning the |
| nevertheless, continued the modified custody in | | | | custody of the child or children is pending in a |
| the mother upon condition that the children return | | | | court in another jurisdiction. Support for the |
| to Oregon for visitation with their father during | | | | Oregon court's exercise of jurisdiction substantially |
| the summer recess. The move to Maryland | | | | in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform |
| occurred on January 11, 1976. When the mother | | | | Act, which is also in effect in Oregon, was found |
| failed to return the children to Oregon during the | | | | by Judge Maguire in the provisions of § 186, |
| following June, the father, on July 12, 1976, filed a | | | | "When court has jurisdiction," specifically |
| Motion in Oregon to have Mrs. Paltrow adjudicated | | | | subsection (a)(1). We think that the trial court |
| in contempt and to transfer to him the custody | | | | was correct in this interpretation. The six-month |
| of the other 2 children. The mother's bill of | | | | provision in the statute is obviously not the |
| complaint was filed on July 26, 1976, in the Circuit | | | | equivalent of a statute of limitations and the court |
| Court for Baltimore County, and requested that | | | | properly found substantial conformity with the |
| the court assume jurisdiction of the two minor | | | | provisions of the Act. We also observe that |
| children residing with her. The father did not file | | | | the facts and circumstances involved in these |
| an answer to the bill of complaint but, as already | | | | proceedings might well have justified the court, |
| indicated, filed a Motion Ne Recipiatur on which a | | | | under § 189 of the Act, "Finding that court is |
| hearing was held on September 27, 1976.The | | | | inconvenient forum," to decline to exercise its |
| lower court declined jurisdiction. Appellant mother | | | | jurisdiction and to dismiss the proceedings on the |
| challenged an order of the Circuit Court for | | | | ground that Maryland was an "inconvenient forum" |
| Baltimore County (Maryland), which declined | | | | and that the court of Oregon was a "more |
| jurisdiction in the child custody action and granted | | | | appropriate forum." Art. 16, § 189 (a). With |
| appellee father's motion ne recipiatur, because the | | | | respect to § 189 (c), it is relevant that Oregon |
| mother did not comply with the requirements of | | | | was the state where all four children had been |
| § 191 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction | | | | raised and where two of the children reside with |
| Act, Md. Ann. Code art. 16, § 184 et seq. | | | | the father, in his custody. Oregon has the closer |
| Issues: | | | | connection with the family and its court has |
| - Can a Motion Ne Recipiatur decide the question | | | | considered the issue of custody on three |
| of jurisdiction? | | | | occasions, the last being in April 1976, only three |
| - Whether the Oregon court was the proper | | | | months prior to the institution of the instant |
| forum to exercise jurisdiction? | | | | proceedings. |
| As the Court of Appeals and this Court have had | | | | Conclusion: |
| occasion to hold, such a motion has a specific, | | | | The court affirmed the judgment of the lower |
| limited purpose and may not serve the office of | | | | court, which declined jurisdiction in the mother's |
| a demurrer, plea, motion raising preliminary | | | | child custody dispute and held that Oregon was |
| objection or motion for summary judgment. | | | | the proper forum. |
| Here, the motion was addressed to the failure of | | | | Disclaimer: |
| Mrs. Paltrow to supply in her bill of complaint or in | | | | These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law |
| a separate affidavit the information required by | | | | Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views |
| § 191 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction | | | | of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions |
| Act, particularly information relating to Dr. | | | | should be consulted for their authoritative content. |
| Paltrow's pending motion in Oregon for transfer of | | | | |