Main Menu

Christensen v. Seckin

FAMILY LAW

Clara Nieman

In Christensen v. Seckin, 486 P.2d 181 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify child custody or support orders entered in a foreign country unless specific conditions were met. (Id. at 187). Seckin and Christensen married in 2012, Seckin gave birth to the couple’s child in Turkey in 2013, and while Seckin and the child were in Turkey the couple reached a mutual divorce agreement and the Turkish court awarded custody to Seckin. (Id. at 182). In 2017, Seckin and the child returned to Alaska, and in 2018 the Turkish divorce decree was registered in Alaska superior court and the couple filed a stipulation stating that Seckin had legal custody of the child. (Id. at 182–83). In 2019 Seckin and the child returned to Turkey, and Christensen subsequently filed a motion to modify the Turkish custody order. (Id. at 183). Christensen argued that Seckin agreed to Alaska jurisdiction when she registered the Turkish judgment in Alaska and when the couple filed a stipulation in Alaska court, but the superior court ruled that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify custody or support. (Id. at 184). The supreme court ruled that Seckin and Christensen’s stipulation did not modify the Turkish agreement, and therefore the stipulation did not transfer jurisdiction from Turkey to Alaska. (Id. at 185–86). Additionally, an Alaska court can only modify another jurisdiction’s order if Alaska has jurisdiction to make an initial determination and either the court of the other jurisdiction determines it no longer has jurisdiction or Alaska would be a more convenient forum, or neither the child nor a parent presently resides in the other jurisdiction. (Id. at 185 n.12). Since these conditions were not met, Alaska did not have jurisdiction to modify the Turkish custody order. (Id. at 186). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify child custody or support orders entered in a foreign country unless specific conditions were met. (Id. at 187).

Christensen v. Seckin

FAMILY LAW

Clara Nieman

In Christensen v. Seckin, 486 P.2d 181 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify child custody or support orders entered in a foreign country unless specific conditions were met. (Id. at 187). Seckin and Christensen married in 2012, Seckin gave birth to the couple’s child in Turkey in 2013, and while Seckin and the child were in Turkey the couple reached a mutual divorce agreement and the Turkish court awarded custody to Seckin. (Id. at 182). In 2017, Seckin and the child returned to Alaska, and in 2018 the Turkish divorce decree was registered in Alaska superior court and the couple filed a stipulation stating that Seckin had legal custody of the child. (Id. at 182–83). In 2019 Seckin and the child returned to Turkey, and Christensen subsequently filed a motion to modify the Turkish custody order. (Id. at 183). Christensen argued that Seckin agreed to Alaska jurisdiction when she registered the Turkish judgment in Alaska and when the couple filed a stipulation in Alaska court, but the superior court ruled that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify custody or support. (Id. at 184). The supreme court ruled that Seckin and Christensen’s stipulation did not modify the Turkish agreement, and therefore the stipulation did not transfer jurisdiction from Turkey to Alaska. (Id. at 185–86). Additionally, an Alaska court can only modify another jurisdiction’s order if Alaska has jurisdiction to make an initial determination and either the court of the other jurisdiction determines it no longer has jurisdiction or Alaska would be a more convenient forum, or neither the child nor a parent presently resides in the other jurisdiction. (Id. at 185 n.12). Since these conditions were not met, Alaska did not have jurisdiction to modify the Turkish custody order. (Id. at 186). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that Alaska lacked jurisdiction to modify child custody or support orders entered in a foreign country unless specific conditions were met. (Id. at 187).