Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-1725

In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.R.S., a Minor Child.

Filed September 30, 2008 Affirmed Klaphake, Judge Concurring specially, Minge, Judge Kandiyohi County District Court File No. 34-FA-06-14

John E. Mack, Mack & Daby P.A., P.O. Box 302, New London, MN 56273 (for appellant mother) Timothy J. Simonson, 331 S.W. Third Street, P.O. Box 130, Willmar, MN 56201 (for respondent father) Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Minge, Judge; and Schellhas, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. Minnesota courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act to modify a Colorado child support order when all of the parties do not reside in Minnesota and the order has not been registered in Minnesota. 2. The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not

require Minnesota to accept subject matter jurisdiction in violation of Minnesota law.

OPINION KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Rhonda Strick and Kandiyohi County, Minnesota (on her behalf), challenge the district court's order concluding that Minnesota courts do not have jurisdiction to modify a Colorado child support order after Colorado transferred jurisdiction to Minnesota. Appellant also asserts that the district court's failure to accept jurisdiction violates the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution. Because the parties do not all reside in Minnesota and the order has not been registered in Minnesota, Minnesota does not have jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act to modify the Colorado child support order, and because the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution does not require Minnesota to accept subject matter jurisdiction in violation of Minnesota law, we affirm. FACTS The parties are unmarried parents of a minor child who was born in Colorado on November 11, 1994. On or about April 1, 1996, a Colorado court granted appellant sole custody of the child, granted respondent Larry Bormuth visitation, and ordered him to pay child support. This order was modified by the Colorado court in February 2001 and June 2002. In July 2001, the Colorado court approved appellant's request to relocate with the minor child to Minnesota. In August 2005, respondent moved the Colorado court to modify his visitation rights. In response, appellant requested the Colorado court to stay respondent's motion and transfer jurisdiction to Minnesota. On October 26, 2005, the Colorado court found 2

that Colorado was an inconvenient forum based on Colo. Rev. Stat.

Download A07-1725, In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.R.S., a Minor Child..pdf

Minnesota Law