The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

For example, in Jones v. White , discussed above, the Court of Civil Appeals decided the trial court had no jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and dismissed the case, even though the parties attempted to waive the applicability of the UCCJEA. The decision is now per haps questionable under the doc trine of N.A. , as the court did have subject matter jurisdiction under that case. However, had the court decided that the parties succeeded in waiving the UCCJEA, as the par ties attempted to do, it would have been very problematic in the event of post-decree custody litigation. The parties were actually from New Hampshire and Massachusetts. There seemed to be no question that this was an acrimonious divorce and that there would be post-divorce proceedings, which would take place in either New Hampshire or Massachusetts. Given that the Oklahoma deter mination in Jones v. White was not in accordance with the UCCJEA, it would not be enforceable in either state. However, whichever custody decree would be next rendered in accordance with the UCCJEA would be enforceable in Oklahoma. In that case, even though it might be proper as a matter of internal state law for the parties to waive the UCCJEA jurisdictional rules, as a matter of interstate enforcement of the custody determination, they should not do so. The matter can be seen more starkly in the Illinois case of McCormick v. Robertson . 15 In that case, Joshua McCormick and Alexus Robertson met in Missouri in 2008. Mr. McCormick was a resident of Illinois. Ms. Robertson was a resident of Missouri. A brief relationship between the two resulted in a child, L.M., who was

born in Missouri on April 23, 2009. In early 2010, Mr. McCormick filed a complaint in the circuit court of Champaign County, Illinois, pur suant to the Illinois Parentage Act. 16 Shortly after Ms. Robertson was served, she filed a written entry of appearance. That document, pre pared by Mr. McCormick’s attor ney and signed by Ms. Robertson, stated that Ms. Robertson was waiving “all manner of summons and process” and submitting to the court’s jurisdiction. The parents agreed they would have joint cus tody, although the child would live with the mother. The Illinois court approved the parties’ agreement and incorporated it into the decree. The decree thus contained a pro vision that they had submitted to the jurisdiction of Illinois and that the agreement should be construed according to the law of Illinois. Two years later, Ms. Robertson moved to Las Vegas with L.M. Mr. McCormick cited her for contempt for violating the terms of the decree and ultimately filed a motion to modify custody of the child in Illinois. Ms. Robertson, in the meantime, initiated a custody proceeding in Nevada, arguing that the Illinois proceeding was invalid because it was conducted in violation of the UCCJEA in that L.M. was born in Missouri and was never in Illinois. At the same time, Ms. Robertson asked the Illinois court to dismiss Mr. McCormick’s modification proceeding on the ground that Illinois did not have jurisdiction to enter the original custody order. After a conference between the Nevada and Illinois judges, the Illinois case was dis missed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that the provisions of the UCCJEA were not satisfied.

entire UCCJA around Justice Frankfurter’s concurrence, since she found that no workable statute could be written around Justice Burton’s plurality opinion, which viewed custody determinations as requiring personal jurisdiction. The Legislature can then deter mine whether it should enact a law that decides which custody determinations will be recognized and which will not be recognized. That is what the UCCJEA does. That is also what the federal PKPA does. Further, the UCCJEA was written in such a way that it requires recognition in those cases where the PKPA would also require recognition. Cases like In re N.A. are not interstate cases. They are intrastate cases, and for intrastate purposes, Oklahoma could have whatever jurisdictional rules it chooses. But the bottom line for an Oklahoma attorney who has a custody case that is or may become an interstate case is that the UCCJEA cannot be ignored. It must be complied with. If the UCCJEA is not com plied with, no other state will enforce that Oklahoma custody determination, since other states will only enforce custody deter minations that are made in com pliance with the jurisdictional standards of the UCCJEA. Further, if another state renders a UCCJEA compliant determination contrary to an Oklahoma determination, Oklahoma will have to recognize it because the Oklahoma UCCJEA does require recognition of other states’ custody determinations made in accordance with the jurisdictional standards of the UCCJEA, even if the previous determination of Oklahoma had decided that the parties could “waive” the UCCJEA.

Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.

JANUARY 2026 | 13

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL