An Overview of Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction in Child Custody Cases Under the UCCJEA and Illinois Law

Illinois enacted the UCCJEA on January 1, 2004, with the main goal of resolving custody jurisdictional disputes that arise between States, allowing for cooperation between states to resolve custody issues, and giving states the power to enforce custody orders promptly.[1] The UCCJEA addresses temporary emergency jurisdiction in section 204 of the act. Specifically, allowing temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is in the State and is abandoned or if the child, a sibling, or parent is threatened with or subjected to abuse or mistreatment.[2] Illinois has adopted the same provision in 750 ILCS 36/204.[3] 

When looking at cases that have applied the statute Gorup v. Brady demonstrates when a circuit court properly exercises emergency jurisdiction. In that case, a couple was married in Louisiana and shortly after had one child.[4] The couple proceeded to dissolve their marriage in 2011 in Louisiana, and under their dissolution of marriage, the mother was designated as the primary domiciliary parent.[5] The mother’s work required her to travel, and she would leave the minor child with the father whenever she deemed it appropriate, and the father resided in Litchfield, Illinois, during the course of events.[6] In 2012, the mother met a man who later became her boyfriend, and they ultimately moved to Texas with him in 2013.[7] That same year, she informed the minor child's father that she wanted to get away from her boyfriend and was looking to move to Springfield, Illinois, or St. Louis, Missouri, but ultimately went to Texas with the boyfriend.[8] The boyfriend was then murdered in Texas, and upon hearing this, the minor child’s father sought an order of protection against the mother, protecting the minor child, himself, and his new wife.[9] The summons was sent to the mother’s known address in Louisiana with a work address listed in Texas.[10] 

The circuit court granted the father’s emergency order of protection, and the father also sought an entry of a plenary order, which the court set to be heard at a later date.[11] At the hearing, the father asked the circuit court to enter a temporary modification of the Louisiana custody arrangement.[12] The circuit court, after hearing testimony, denied the order of protection but recommended that temporary custody of the minor child be given to the father and that the parties reconvene to have a full hearing at a later date.[13] Ultimately, in January of 2015, the circuit court entered an order granting a modification for the custody arrangement and awarding the father with primary custody of the minor child, upon which the mother appealed.[14]

On appeal, the mother argued that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and was, therefore, unable to modify the Louisiana judgment.[15] The Illinois Appellate Court disagreed, stating that under the UCCJEA, the goal was to simplify jurisdiction disputes between states and further that the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted “jurisdiction” in the UCCJEA to mean “simply a procedural limit on when the court may hear initial custody matters, not a precondition to the exercise of the court’s inherent authority.”[16] Also, when a court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the court’s judgment will not be rendered void, and the court will not lose jurisdiction simply because of an error or impropriety.[17] Furthermore, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the requirements under 750 ILCS 36/204(a) were met when the order of protection was filed and that the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction as well as temporary emergency jurisdiction.[18] Although the court held that while exercising its temporary emergency jurisdiction, the circuit court failed to properly follow the statutory requirements to modify an out-of-state custody arrangement.[19] 

Ultimately, where the circuit court failed in the case is under 750 ILCS 36/204(c) and (d).[20] Under 750 ILCS 36/204(c), the circuit court should have issued an order specifying a period for the father to seek an order from Louisiana to modify the Louisiana custody arrangement, which the circuit court did not do.[21] Further, when the circuit court was made aware of a previous custody arrangement, they were required to communicate with the Louisiana court in order to determine or transfer the case to Louisiana.[22]

As illustrated in Gorup v. Brady, gaining subject-matter jurisdiction for a temporary emergency jurisdiction situation is statutory clear as to what the situation must be for the court to grant it. Further, the entire statute must be followed when seeking to modify an already existing child custody arrangement from another state, and the circuit court cannot simply modify it.

[1] See In Re Jospeh V.D., 868 N.E.2d 1076, 1077 (Ill. App. 2007). 

[2] See UCCJEA §204(a).

[3] See 750 ILCS 36/204.

[4] See Gorup v. Brady, 46 N.E.3d 832, 834 (Ill. App. 2015)

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 835. 

[9] Id. 

[10] Id. 

[11] Id. 

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 836. 

[14] Id. at 837.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 837-38.

[17] Id. at 838. 

[18] Id. at 838. 

[19] Id. at 839. 

[20] Id.

[21] See 750 ILCS 36/204(c).

[22] See 750 ILCS 36/204(d)