Jurisdiction

[crayiii]

My son was born in Oregon and my wife, he, and I lived in oregon for 3 years after.  We all moved to Washington, bought a house and lived in that state for 3 years (I still worked in Oregon)  We then moved back to Oregon where we planned to remain.

My wife took our son to Alaska on "vacation" after being in Oregon for 5.5 months.  After a month in Alaska, she informed me she was getting a divorce and sent me Alaska divorce papers to sign.  A month later she sent me Oregon divorce papers to sign because she said she hadn't been in Alaska long enough.

After 5 months in Alaska she and our son moved to Washington state.  I hired an attorney and we filed papers in Oregon and had her served.  A couple of weeks later, I was served papers her attorney filed in Washington.  They have been in Washington since January 5th.  We are now arguing jurisdiction.  I have answered nothing from the Washington courts with the exception of my attorney asking for a continuance with plans on arguing jurisdiction

1. Are she and our son considered Washington residents since they weren't in either Oregon nor Alaska for 6 months?

2. Is the time she spent in Alaska on "vacation" added to the Oregon residency time?

3. Which state would have jurisdiction in this matter?

[socrateaser]

>1. Are she and our son considered Washington residents since
>they weren't in either Oregon nor Alaska for 6 months?

Residence is not enough. The person must be a resident for 6 months before he/she can file for divorce.

>
>2. Is the time she spent in Alaska on "vacation" added to the
>Oregon residency time?

Good luck proving that it was a vacation. If you could, then yes, but, you'll never prove it.

>
>3. Which state would have jurisdiction in this matter?

A person must be a resident of Oregon or Washington for at least 6 months before filing for divorce. You have been an Oregon resident for more than 6 months, so you can file in Oregon. Your spouse has been a Washington resident for less than 6 months, so she cannot file in Washington.

Therefore, Oregon has jurisdiction. The problem is that the child is in Washington, and Oregon can voluntarily relinquish jurisdiction to Washington for the purposes of determining custody if there is a significant connection to Washington regarding the facts of the case.

For the purposes of judicial and economic efficiency, you should both want jurisdiction to be in one State court. The benefit of Oregon is that it has the lower child support guidelines.

I suggest that you contact your spouse and suggest that a battle over jurisdiction will do nothing but put money into each of your respective attorneys' pockets, and that you will offer to pay her attorney fees "thus far incurred", in order to encourage her to come to Oregon. Your reduced child support costs will ultimately wipe out your initial outlay.

[crayiii]

my wife has also kept me from even speaking to our son since September with the exception of having him tell me that her boyfriend is his new dad and I am not his dad anymore.  There simply is no talking to her at this point.

My attorneys are using the UCCJEA to argue among other things, unjustifiable conduct on her part.  

In my wife's statement she says she went to Alaska for a vacation.

[socrateaser]

Oregon has jurisdiction. The only issue is how much are you willing to fork out to prove it in court, vs. negotiating a settlement. You need to pick your battles -- attorneys love to scoop up your dough in pursuit of a just cause. I prefer to provide a positive result for the least amount of money.

A jurisdictional battle, with a couple of hearings could cost you several thousand dollars, and it may be cheaper to offer a settlement -- that's all I'm saying.

[crayiii]

Thank you!!!  I now have two attorneys, one in Oregon and one in Washington.  I asked the one in Washington if he could just call the other attorney and see if they want to work on a settlement and he told me that he negotiates from a position of strength and not weakness so he wanted to address jurisdiction first.

[crayiii]

The judge in Oregon just siged a motion to show cause that requires my wife to return (with our child) to Oregon for court next week.

Now my Washington attorney should be able to show the Washington court that Oregon is actively taking jurisdiction.  Is that right?

[socrateaser]

>The judge in Oregon just siged a motion to show cause that
>requires my wife to return (with our child) to Oregon for
>court next week.
>
>Now my Washington attorney should be able to show the
>Washington court that Oregon is actively taking jurisdiction.
>Is that right?

An order to appear is just that. If your wife's Washington attorney believes that jurisdiction is properly in Washington, he/she could appear for the sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction, and then you'd have a whole new round of hearings.

Do you have a lot of assets that the court will be dividing amongst you and your wife? Oregon is a separate property State, while Washington is a community property jurisdiction, so there may be some other facts that could sway my opinion about which forum would be better and how much negotiation you might want to consider.

This must be starting to get a wee bit expensive, by now.

[crayiii]

all we have is $65,000 in debt that I kept.  No property, nothing.  I have spent about $8000 on attorneys and $2500 on a PI to track her down after she and her boyfriend starting hiding.  Also about $1000 on process servers while she evaded service.

I haven't been able to see my son for eight months or speak to him in two months.  

[crayiii]

the petition my wife filed in Washington states this:

she and our son have lived in washington since Jan 5, 2005 after having been in Alaska since July, 2004. prior to that they were in Oregon for approximately 4 months (5 actually)

she states our son is enrolled in school in washington and has ties to her new boyfriend and his family.

She states that he has more ties in Washington than he does Oregon.

she states she never relinquished her connections to washington and still has a washington drivers license.  she states she has a job there and plans on staying.

It appears that they are using the significant connection under the uccjea to try to get jurisdiction.

More facts.

before living in washington, we lived in oregon for 5 years.  Our son was born in oregon.

1. what kinds of arguments should I be looking at to ensure Oregon jurisdiction?

[socrateaser]

>the petition my wife filed in Washington states this:
>
>she and our son have lived in washington since Jan 5, 2005
>after having been in Alaska since July, 2004. prior to that
>they were in Oregon for approximately 4 months (5 actually)
>
>she states our son is enrolled in school in washington and has
>ties to her new boyfriend and his family.
>
>She states that he has more ties in Washington than he does
>Oregon.
>
>she states she never relinquished her connections to
>washington and still has a washington drivers license.  she
>states she has a job there and plans on staying.
>
>It appears that they are using the significant connection
>under the uccjea to try to get jurisdiction.
>
>More facts.
>
>before living in washington, we lived in oregon for 5 years.
>Our son was born in oregon.
>
>1. what kinds of arguments should I be looking at to ensure
>Oregon jurisdiction?

Prove with credible evidence that your wife is unstable, and argue that she is using the WA court as a means of continuing her pattern of frustrating your access to your child, and that the court should not be used by a party who comes to the court with "unclean hands." (legal magic words).

The trick is providing credible evidence. Most of what you've got is likely your word against hers. Judges ignore such evidence. You need disinterested third party witnesses and objective evidence like receipts and such to prove your case, or you're gonna lose and waste money doing it.

If you're wondering why you're gonna lose, the answer is quite simple. All things being equal, if the judge ignores all of both parties' evidence, then what's left is the bare best interests of the child, which is almost always preserving the "status quo." And, the current status quo is that your wife and the child live in WA. So, putting that on the scale by itself, and you lose.

I empathize with your situation, but you need to know the facts, so you can better decide how to spend your money.

I still think your best angle is to try to pay your wife to come to Oregon. Assuming that it's really worth it to fight that battle. Maybe it's not. Calculate the difference in child support awards and divide it into the amount of legal fees that you're gonna incur in fighting jurisdiction. Then you'll know what you're up against.