In Re Marriage Of Murphy

952 P.2d 624 (Wash.App. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W were married in Rock Springs, Wyoming, in August 1993. They have two children, Lacee Murphy, born on January 13, 1988, and Colt Cage, born on April 25, 1990. W states that the family lived in Wyoming until March 1994, when they moved to Tucson, Arizona. H abandoned the family on April 25, 1994. W and the children then returned to Rock Springs, Wyoming, and lived there from June 1994 until June 1995, when they moved to Washington. The children have been in Washington since June 1995; this is substantiated by Department of Health and Human Services records. H concedes Ohio has never been the home state of the children. On March 1, 1996, H commenced a dissolution proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County, Ohio, seeking dissolution of the marriage, a division of property and debts, and the establishment of his parental rights and responsibilities with respect to the children. W filed a motion to dismiss insofar as it requested the court to make determinations of parental rights. W argued in her motion that Ohio was not the children's home state and, therefore, the Ohio court lacked jurisdiction under Ohio law. The motion was overruled, and W then filed an answer in the Ohio court. A motion for a continuance on the basis that she, along with her children and other witnesses, would need to travel to Ohio from Washington to take part in court proceedings. This request was denied on May 24. W then filed a petition for dissolution in Benton County, Washington, and requested custody of her children. W also obtained an ex parte restraining order against her husband. In her proposed parenting plan, W requested that H's residential time with their children be restricted based on allegations of spousal abuse. W appeared in the Ohio and entered into an agreement resolving all issues related to the dissolution proceedings, including those related to the rights and responsibilities concerning the children. The agreement contained a stipulation consenting to jurisdiction in Ohio. W contends that she entered this agreement under duress and that she believed that if she refused to accept the agreement, she would lose custody of the children. The trial court in Washington issued an order dismissing the petition for dissolution of marriage based upon the UCCJA, the stipulation entered in the Ohio action, and the fact that the Ohio action was filed first. W appealed.