Jurisdiction is the authority of a particular court to hear and rule on a case, and it is a crucial part of any court proceeding. There are multiple types of jurisdiction, such as territorial and subject matter. Territorial jurisdiction refers to a court’s ability to hear cases relating to a certain geographic area. Subject matter jurisdiction determines a court’s authority to hear certain types of cases, like child custody and divorce.
While this may seem straightforward, jurisdiction can easily become a contested issue that can greatly impact the outcome of a case.
Scott v. Scott
The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled on this issue in the case of Scott v. Scott, in which Mother appealed a modified custody order based in part on lack of jurisdiction.
Father filed for custody of the parties’ son in 2021, and the trial court entered a consent order granting joint legal and physical custody to Mother and Father. The consent order included a detailed schedule for custody and visitation, as well as provisions on issues like decision-making and communication. This order also stated that the parties were to attend mediation or arbitration to resolve disputes prior to seeking court involvement.
In March of 2022, Father filed for a modification of custody and support based on substantial and material changes in circumstances affecting the welfare of their son. Mother filed a reply to Father’s motion, denying some allegations and admitting others, but made no mention of mediation or arbitration. The trial court entered a modified custody order, and Mother appealed.
Her argument was that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the parties’ original consent order required them to attend mediation or arbitration before going to court, and since they had not done that, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order a modification. The Court of Appeals found Mother’s argument misplaced since it seemed her actual argument suggested that Father lacked standing to file a motion to modify rather than the court lacking jurisdiction. Despite this confusion over Mother’s argument, the Court of Appeals decided to hear her interlocutory appeal.
While the parties’ consent order did include a provision about mediation or arbitration, the agreement did not prevent either of the parties from filing a motion to modify custody or bar the court from ruling on a motion to modify. The appellate court noted that had Mother or Father requested mediation or arbitration prior to the hearing on Father’s modification motion, the trial court could have made a determination about that. However, neither party requested this.
The trial court’s ruling was affirmed by Court of Appeals because child custody issues are within the scope of a court, even when contractual agreements exist between the parents. To deal with a complex custody matter, speak with an experienced family law attorney.