FAMILY LAW
Daisy Gray
In Mauritsen v. Mauristen, the supreme court held that courts should interpret the phrase “presently resides” in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) consistently with “residency” in AS 0.01.10.055. In 2016, the superior court entered a custody agreement that provided equal shared physical custody between Mauritsen and Mauritsen (n/k/a) Taubert when the two lived in the same community and primary custody to Mauritsen if the two lived a “significant distance apart.” In 2018, while both parties were living in South Carolina, Mauritsen filed a motion with the superior court concerning a dispute over custody arrangements during Thanksgiving break. Observing there was no indication that either party had registered the custody order in South Carolina, the superior court asserted its continuing jurisdiction over the matter. In a motion to clarify, Taubert stated she had registered the custody order in South Carolina, leading the superior court to conclude it did not have jurisdiction because neither the parents nor children “presently reside[d]”in Alaska. Mauritsen argued in his motion for reconsideration that he retained Alaska residency because he only intended to stay in South Carolina temporarily before returning to Alaska. The superior court denied his motion on the basis that none of the parties physically resided in Alaska. On appeal, the supreme court reversed, reasoning that “presently resides” accords with the definition of “residency” in AS 01.10.055,which considers factors including intent to return to Alaska. Noting that courts in other states have adopted inconsistent interpretations of “presently resides,” the supreme court determined that an inquiry that looks beyond technical domicile best addresses concerns of forum shopping, child abduction, the relitigation that the UCCJEA seeks to avoid. The supreme court additionally observed that the superior court did not sufficiently examine the issue of whether it should decline jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds and could therefore explore the issue further on remand. Accordingly, the supreme court vacated the superior court’s orders and remanded, holding that courts should interpret “presently resides” harmoniously with “residency” under Alaska law.
