Mom Claims Dad Used Her Arrest to Get Kids Custody

Added: 2026-06-10

[00:00:00]the answer to the mo uh there was a response there was an answer to the motion dismiss and then there was a response to petitioner's answer by you um there but other than that there are a couple of exhibits that have been sent here that I really have not looked at and if you had any exhibits Mr. Miller. I've not looked at those either.

[00:00:30]>> Very good. Uh your honor, if I might bring you to speed at uh looked like 11:03 this morning opposing council filed a response to my response indicating that the case, the Missouri case had been dismissed. I think that's probably an overstatement. Uh, I think that they also sent us a copy of the um order uh staying the proceedings out of Missouri and there is a case management conference set September the 2nd, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. So, the Missouri case has not been dismissed. It stayed as was this case.

[00:01:10]Um, judge, if I might as kind of a explanatory situation, I think you're pretty good on the facts. Um, to date, however, the filing by the uh petitioner in this case was based upon his claim that Kansas was the UCCJ home state. And of course, this court is well aware that there has to be at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of the custody proceeding.

[00:01:39]And in this case, that is not what happened. Mr. McCulla did not disclose to the courts that the child had been living in the state of Missouri. Um, in his UCCCJA affidavit, uh, yet, uh, as indicated in my response, um, in his answer, he had indicated that the mother lived in Missouri from May 18th of 23 to November 23rd of 2024.

[00:02:06]that would certainly indicate that the child lived in a different state um within the six months immediately preceding the filing of the commencement of this matter. Um he also testified in a uh PFA case in Greenwood County that she's only been in Kansas City for about a year and a half, your honor. So, he under his sworn testimony >> where uh I I shoot I don't have we need to mark the petition or whatever document you're referring to because I don't know for sure whether he was referencing that mom had been in Kansas City just that long just the year or if the child >> that uh is included in the transcript you that's kind of the problem with doing this by Zoom when I have uh six or seven witnesses and multiple documents.

[00:03:02]Uh but the court could take judicial notice and the real concern is the um UCCC JA affidavit in this Greenwood County case that indicates that the minor child lived at and then he references um June 24 to current and it says Eureka, Kansas. uh doesn't say that was by Risha and then there's a Brandon Mcculla indicating that he had lived there but as far as where the child has lived he does not indicate or disclose to the court that this child had been living in the state of Missouri immediately preceding the filing.

[00:03:45]>> Okay. Well, I will take judicial notice.

[00:03:48]Um I guess that will be um you want that to be respondents one I mean A I'm sorry A >> A is fine your honor.

[00:04:01]>> Okay.

[00:04:03]>> But based upon that your honor >> that but I don't have the transcript.

[00:04:07]>> I I know we just got it yesterday morning. Okay.

[00:04:10]>> And I wasn't sure how you wanted to do this. Uh, like I said, I'm I know during COVID we did a lot of Zoom evidentiary hearings, but since then I know most judges don't like that, especially when we've got a lot of documentation and number of witnesses to testify.

[00:04:26]>> Well, I prefer in person, but I can't always expedite hearings in Greenwood County because of availability of courtroom and making sure it gets cleared with everybody. Also, I knew your client was from Kansas City and there might be witnesses from different locations.

[00:04:47]Um, and I I thought I was accommodating the parties. Um, and I wanted to get this set, you know, relatively quick, especially given the fact that your client is not receiving any visitation of the child. But I I am happy to schedule this in person if you feel like um your client would get the kind of you know hearing that you want and um do that. I guess I was just trying to get something moving. Um in this case um >> I understand that so many issues >> it is a significant issue for my client.

[00:05:32]Uh however, as indicated, this PFA that has been filed, the child is not listed as a protected party and there is really no reason uh why the the incidents were between the parents and not the child.

[00:05:48]Uh so that's part of the motion to dismiss that I have filed herein. As far as the UCCCJ jurisdiction, >> right, that's a legal matter and I do want to hear from you on that. But just keep in mind, for me, if a child witnesses domestic abuse between parents, that can be as damaging uh as abuse um you know, smacking them or hitting them. But I don't think that the case law necessarily supports that for a one-year protection order involving a child. I think that um it really has to constitute physical harm um to get a final order um that involves the child with no contact at all by the other other parent. So it it's I I just want you to know just because the child it was between the parties I do think it is important or a factor that the child was present. But go ahead.

[00:06:59]>> All right. Very well. Thank you, your honor. Um, if you want to get to the legal analysis, uh, without having UCCCJA jurisdiction or at least, uh, trying to get that without, uh, disclosing to the court that the child had been, uh, living in another state within the months immediately preceding the filing of his petition. I think there's been kind of an overstep and maybe a misrepresentation. There was no need for an emergency jurisdiction in this case because the child was not one of the protected parties. Um, if the court wants to hear testimony today, I can attempt to do it. I think it would probably be easier for the court to have the parties in person though as well as the witnesses and the exhibits.

[00:07:46]I would ask the court to consider um lifting any no contact order and allowing my client to have parenting time in uh pending the actual in-person hearing uh for presentation of evidence.

[00:08:01]How do I ensure though with either one of these parents and the measures that they've gone to and the controversial nature of these proceedings and their relationship um which is high conflict? How do I ensure that either one of them aren't going to run off with the child and not return uh jurisdiction to whatever court um makes orders believing that it has proper jurisdiction until or unless appealed to a higher court. Okay, your honor, my respon my response to that would be ASA 23-3203 that obviously withholding a child from another parent is a consideration to the court. Uh I have also as a practical matter u told my client that in the event that you were granted visitation and that you did not comply with court orders that that pretty much ends the argument. Uh, and I'm sure that the court would take compliance with the existing court orders into effect. I'm just I'm quite frankly a little stunned that with the misrepresentation of the court that he had UCCCJ jurisdiction without disclosing what the facts were that there may be as well as some of the wording in the pleadings that there might be an overstep try to gain an advantage.

[00:09:39]Okay.

[00:09:41]>> Um, how about this question?

[00:09:45]If you are asking for a dismissal based on law, UCCCJA and the argument that this court does not have jurisdiction, not home state jurisdiction or even UCCCJA jurisdiction in this matter.

[00:10:02]Then how how do I have she's not accepted jurisdiction of this court? How do I make orders for parenting time without having jurisdiction of her in this case?

[00:10:24]>> I guess that's why you wear the robe, your honor. Uh but if the court just wants to take the legal question because if you don't have jurisdiction, then the matter should be dismissed. I think we've laid out in writing answers um to the legal inquiries.

[00:10:43]Um but as far as the parenting time, that's where most of the witnesses lie as far as their the validity of their presentation. U because we do have an admission uh in the answer of where the child had I mean it's in the petitioner's own answer that the child had lived uh in Missouri. So, he did not have uh six months of consecutive um Kansas u residency for the child before he filed this matter.

[00:11:15]>> Well, what about his argument that her the majority of her life was spent in Eureka or Greenwood County, Kansas and or Lion County, but definitely in Kansas.

[00:11:32]Um, and that even if she was there with mom that it may or may not been intended for her to return. I mean, h how do you look at residency when a child is born in a certain state, has significant ties and connections there, dad's still here, he's never left. um they're sharing custody even though there's no court order. Um but she's going to see mom in or staying with mom in Missouri.

[00:12:10]>> Well, your honor, the answer to that is that she wasn't just visiting mom. The fact is, and I think the statements that the um petitioner has already stated is the child moved with mom to Missouri and had been there for a year and a half. I believe the visitation was where the father was getting the child on the weekends. Um, and so if you're looking at it from the time spent analysis, the child was living in Missouri with mom.

[00:12:40]So, I think that with the most recent period of time, the uh most time of the child being with mom in Missouri, that's where the more relevant uh witnesses and evidence is going to be, not what was going on a year and a half, two years ago at this point in time, but what had happened up to the date that this hearing had uh excuse me, when this incident occurred.

[00:13:06]>> Yeah, if I could say something real quick. I yeah, I was just getting ready to get to you. So, yes, >> the the respondent is contending that Missouri is the home state. Um, I submitted as evidence today to the court for this hearing. There is an order from that Missouri court and it says in it it quote Missouri is not the home state of the child and this court does not have statutory authority to enter initial child custody determination under the UCCCJA.

[00:13:39]So Missouri has already claimed they're not the home state that leaves Kansas as the remaining court of jurisdiction.

[00:13:49]Your honor, the rest of that uh order staying proceeding says though, however, pursuant to Missouri law, this court shall stay further action until the court in Kansas makes a determination on whether it will accept home state jurisdiction in the event Kansas does not accept home state jurisdiction. This court will accept jurisdiction if otherwise appropriate to UCCCJA and accept the matter for a case management conference in September.

[00:14:20]And I I would like to address the amen emergency temporary jurisdiction issue.

[00:14:26]>> Okay. All right. Go ahead.

[00:14:28]>> Um judge, the respondent was on on the date in question. Once she's arrested, that child was abandoned by her and the father had to step in and take custody.

[00:14:45]that is a grounds for that emergency jurisdiction >> and as soon as that happens this court has the jurisdiction of this case.

[00:14:56]>> Your honor in in response I would suggest to the court that she was not permitted to have any contact with the petitioner in this case as a result of the PFA that he immediately filed. So she was not able to make contact with him to try to gain the child back. and in contacting Missouri council uh she was able to finally get the paternity matter on file.

[00:15:19]>> Well, I do I do I am finding that um this court had emergency temporary jurisdiction. the child was physically present in this state when this incident occurred. And if one parent becomes unavailable for whatever reason and lives in another state, whether it's a car accident or whatever the they get arrested or whatever the case may be, uh, and the other parent needs a lawful court order or wants one of custody. Um I I think that I mean mind you there's substantial ties and connection to these communities and to this state but setting that aside I I believe that there was emergency jurisdiction but we are past that now we're trying to make a determination about final jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction. What court has that? I I think that they can move to dismiss our temporary jurisdiction because it's their belief that Missouri has proper jurisdiction and will exercise jurisdiction if this court dismisses its action.

[00:16:42]Um or I think this court can find um that it has controlling jurisdiction and that um I think the other state will defer jurisdiction uh to this court based on the commencement of the proceeding in Greenwood County that predates the um Jackson County, Missouri case. Let me look here. Um you know, the part of the problem here these days I'm finding and there's no real solution to it is these laws were created during times where things were more traditional and um where folks were married, got divorced, moved to another state.

[00:17:37]um people are much more mobile and they're acting without any court orders um into teenage years of a child's life. And it's hard to determine what's actually been de facto and what um where the jurisdiction lies um sometimes.

[00:18:01]>> Your honor, may I say something quickly?

[00:18:04]>> Yes. I I think when you talk about commencement of an action, you not you don't just have the filing, but you also have service as a component of the commencement of an action. When you're looking at jurisdiction on limitations and things like that, if you don't get service on them, uh your your time can run. And I think that's the same analysis this court should make is is that although the filing occurred, they didn't get service on my client until well after he'd been served. In fact, looking at things, it appears that the summons uh was not issued until after he got served.

[00:18:44]>> All right. Well, hang on a minute. Uh I I didn't say that was my necessarily finding an interpretation. I said that it was my understanding that um when the Jackson County judge, Judge Agnelli, made her determination, she made it based on her belief that UCCJA um when it talked about commencement, she believed that to be equivalent to filing an action and his paternity action to seek custody orders was filed first.

[00:19:25]So, um, December, January, February Your honor, if I might, the bulk of the testimony and evidence regarding the child's environment, uh, observers, etc., would be in Missouri, not in Kansas.

[00:20:15]So if no state qualifies as the home state, a state can exercise jurisdiction if the child and at least one parent have a significant connection to the state and substantial evidence about the child's care is available there.

[00:20:35]That applies here.

[00:20:38]But what constitutes a finding that there is essentially no home state?

[00:20:47]And that was my question to you. Can this court find because there was no lawful custody order in existence and these parties just had sort of an informal arrangement and they each got parenting time because I think before that year she lived here, she lived there, she went to school here, then she went with mom that they shared their arrangements with the child that there really wasn't a permanent intended home state of the child. Can this because if this court finds that there's no state qualifies as the home state per se that um Kansas has jurisdiction because dad has remained here and this is where the child was born and has substantial ties and connections.

[00:21:50]Even your client has substantial ties and connections to Greenwood County and um what I'm reading here that I I have to look at UCCCJa every time and try to retrace and re-establish the connections there. But it clearly says in situations where a child is at risk, uh, the court can exercise temporary jurisdiction to protect the child, even if it's not the home state or a significant connection state. I think this was a significant connection state, but either way, temporary jurisdiction was appropriate.

[00:22:42]>> Did I add something?

[00:22:44]>> Yeah, just a minute.

[00:22:45]>> Okay.

[00:23:09]All right. Yes. Response.

[00:23:12]>> Um, judge. I think under 204B um that temporary emergency jurisdiction can become the final determination and it can become the home state of the child um if no other state has any prior child custody determinations and so I think or proceeding. So I think that's what we have in this case.

[00:23:43]So that emergency jurisdiction can turn into the home state.

[00:23:47]>> Okay. Give me that site again that you're relying on.

[00:23:50]>> Uh it's 204B and then the Kansas one is 23-37204B.

[00:24:02]me just a minute.

[00:24:16]That would kind of make sense to me in situations where parents just engage in parenting and custody back and forth with no no real orders, no real child support, nothing. Um it's just very loose and very informal no matter where it's occurring at.

[00:24:38]um that would make sense to me, but I don't know that that is I I don't know that's how it reads. Just because I think something makes sense to me doesn't mean that's legally correct.

[00:24:54]My concern, your honor, is is that there was not six months um underneath the belt before he filed even though there might have been emergency not automatically extend and give him the right to use the emergency orders since he was he precluded my client from having contact with the child and returning the child to the state of Missouri. I think that's a factor the court should take into consideration that the relevant evidence prior to the event uh would be in the state of Missouri, not in the state of Kansas.

[00:25:29]>> Was she enrolled in school in Missouri?

[00:25:31]Did she attend?

[00:25:34]>> Your honor, she was homeschooled in co-ops and there is documentation of the same. One of the witnesses that we have, well, several of the witnesses would be able to talk about that.

[00:25:45]Uh, we've got any schoolers general group, which was three to five opportunities weekly. Any schoolers Casey Cooking Group, Any Schoolers Casey STEM Group, Johnson County Homeschool Get Together Group, Casey Clay Guild, Foundry Homeschool Fridays, Casey Homeschool Art Collective, and Hike with the Naturalist group. Uh, that's just uh the schooling. She was involved with the Raytown soccer team, Johnson County homechool get together soccer playg group. Uh her doctors were in Kansas City. Uh she attended church in Raytown, Missouri. Um, and so I I'm suggesting to the court that the relevant evidence of what was going on immediately prior to this event would show that her primary uh exposure would have been to the state of Missouri for the relevant evidences of the home state.

[00:27:03]Well, we need to look at AW, which is a 2021 case, because what this says, and I believe that that's what's occurred here, emergency jurisdiction under the UCC CJA indicates that any temporary emergency orders issued become final in the absence of any orders from a home state court suggesting that temporary emergency jurisdiction can ripen into home state jurisdiction once the home state declines jurisdiction.

[00:27:40]Missouri's declined jurisdiction based on its order.

[00:27:46]So whether you like the way it was worded or not, they've they've stayed the proceedings because nobody wants to risk the fact that this child just falls into a crack. But I believe the nature of the order and based on my conference with that judge is that he's referring jurisdiction to Kansas.

[00:28:06]So we need to look at uh AW. So we're going to be in recess for 10 minutes. I know you have witnesses, but if we have to get to the technical facts of the UCCCJA and its application and be in agreement or at least be have my perspective.

[00:28:31]Otherwise, we don't need a lot of this other evidence.

[00:28:37]So, um, we're going to be in recess for 10 minutes to look at that case.

[00:28:46]Thank you.

[00:29:07]Are you character? There.

[00:29:33]All right, council. I um I think that JB versus JLB.

[00:29:46]Um well, that's not the one that it was.

[00:29:49]That was in a nray AW 29 volume 60 60 can amp second 296 493 P3D 298 starts to give us correction, I guess, as to the rules of UCCCJA, but it certainly is not a case on point because the father was deceased and it was not a was not litigation between two parents.

[00:30:37]It involved DCF, social workers, government agencies, and child in need of care proceedings potentially. So I I don't it doesn't unilaterally answer all of my questions.

[00:30:59]Um, I think what we need to do is I need to have each one of you present any testimony that you think's significant for you to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to submit to the court and I'm going to have to issue a written opinion on the jurisdictional issue. We really don't get to um parenting issues or further custodial issues until there's a final determination that can be appealable by one party or the o as to UCCJA jurisdiction. You know, if you look at it from a perspective of the UCCCJA really was intended to have uniform rules and also to avoid disputes between states. I mean clearly um the judge in Missouri has deferred jurisdiction if this court accepts jurisdiction to us. Um, but I'm still seeing in here that for an initial order to be made, it has to be home state.

[00:32:29]And I'm not 100% convinced that this emergency order ripens in to jurisdiction because the child was not intentionally abandoned, nor was there a threat of harm to the child um or abuse by mom at that moment. So, I'm I'm not sure that we've got the application of these things and I cannot make a determination or necessarily assert anything to Judge Abdelli because I hadn't heard any evidence other than the filings, you know, in the court file. Um, so let's get some evidence laid out that you need to do your proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. And I'm going to have to make um a written ruling from that. And I hope to do that within 14 days.

[00:33:32]Okay.

[00:33:34]All right. I'll go ahead and start with you, Mr. Miller. But I I definitely think each party needs to testify as to how much they had the child um etc. And let me say this, I did note by reading that case that that case um stated that we don't look at the child's residence like we do a legal resident in terms of their intention to return. Their subjective intent is not what they mean by residence for purposes of home state. So where I made that comment, you know, previously, do we look at that? Um, you know, what what was the real intentions here? I I don't think I can that I would apply that rule that it's not where the child's physically present at, but where the child may be intended to return. I I don't think I can do that same kind of analysis. So, I just want to let you know that I have uh corrected my thoughts in that regard based on looking at that case. All right, Mr. Miller, we've got an hour here, so each of you gets 30 minutes and make the best use of it you can.

[00:35:01]>> You're muted, Mr. Miller.

[00:35:15]All right, your honor. Thank you. Uh, one point I would like to make before I start the testimony is is that AW case does specifically provide that uh, if there were temporary orders that it has to state how long those temporary orders were to be in effect to give everybody notice. I don't think that happened.

[00:35:33]Uh, but I'll let the court take a look at the orders themselves to do that. Uh, I would call Ariana Ma, >> but they both filed paternity. I mean, they This isn't a case like that where nobody bothered to file anything anywhere, even though there was an existing temporary order. So, I'm not sure that that's significant. But again, you can make all the arguments you want to when you uh submit your your findings, but I both of these parties took action.

[00:36:07]>> Yeah.

[00:36:08]>> At different times.

[00:36:09]>> So, all right.

[00:36:10]>> Thank you, Yana, to the stand.

[00:36:14]>> All right. Ma'am, if you would raise your right hand, please.

[00:36:18]You do solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.

[00:36:25]>> Yes, >> thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Miller.

[00:36:29]>> Please state your name for the record.

[00:36:31]>> Ariana, >> and are you the mother of the child in question?

[00:36:34]>> Yes.

[00:36:35]>> And did when did you and the child move to the state of Missouri from the state of Kansas?

[00:36:41]>> In May after she finished school, May of 2023.

[00:36:44]>> All right. And was that with uh the father's permission? It was. Yes.

[00:36:49]>> And did the two of you have arranged a parenting time schedule with the child?

[00:36:55]>> Yes. Even prior to our move, Maya was with me every Tuesday through Saturday.

[00:36:59]Um, she spent that time with me because her father worked Wednesday through Saturday. So, I kept her from the Tuesday evening through evening every week most of the time. Um, there were several weeks that we kept for even longer than that. During that year and a half, prior to the incident that happened of us living in Kansas City, um I documented the days out with the text messages to exchange to back those up.

[00:37:22]Um during that year and a half, Maya spent approximately 379 days with me and 150 days with her dad um in Eureka, but the 3759 days were with me in Raytown, Missouri.

[00:37:35]>> Okay. As far as the connections with the uh child in the state of Missouri, can you uh give the court a list of uh contacts that she would have with the state of Missouri?

[00:37:48]>> Yeah, she's got several friends in our neighborhood. Um we've got neighbors that are there. She's also participating in several homeschool groups, um several co-ops. She participates in any schoolers, which is a general school group. She also participates in any schoolers KC, which is a cooking class.

[00:38:02]And then she also participates in an in any schoolers Casey STEM class in Kansas City. She's also a member of the Johnson County homeschool get together group.

[00:38:10]They get together three to five times a month um and do various homeschooling opportunities and events. She also participates in a homeschooling class at the Casey Clay Guild um and she also participates in Foundry Fridays um which is just a playful Friday day for the kids to get together that are homeschooled. Um she's also a member of the Casey homeschool art collective and she also participates in hike with the naturalist group um where they just go and learn about nature and we take hikes with the other homeschooler homesooled children. Um she's also a uh on the team for Rayton soccer and she participates in that and then um >> let me ask you a question. Do you know if she participates any activities in Kansas during that year and a half when you were living in Missouri with her?

[00:38:55]No, she was not participating in any activities during that time in Kansas.

[00:38:59]>> Okay, keep going, please.

[00:39:01]>> Um, she also has doctors. Um, her primary care doctor was Mark Bashram.

[00:39:05]Um, he was aware that she was living in Kansas City. He would call in prescriptions for her if we needed to the Raytown pharmacy uh there where we lived. And she also sees seen a doctor, Dr. Frey, which was her chiropractor right there in Raytown, Missouri. She also seen um multiple physicians at the uh Kansas City um Adele Children's Hospital campus for um spine issues that she had going on and um she was even treated in the emergency room there um just before this incident occurred in November 2nd of 2024. Um we also are members of a church in Raytown. We've been members of that church for approximately a year at the time of this incident occurring. Um she went to children's church with us when she stayed over. um Saturdays on multiple Sundays with us and she attended church events and youth group on Sundays.

[00:39:55]>> Okay. Um >> Okay. And you stated uh Dr. Basham was still listed as her primary physician in Eureka. Correct.

[00:40:05]>> Yes. We would just drive her back to go to the doctor if she needed to go there just because it was hard to get her established with a new PCP in Kansas.

[00:40:13]>> Okay.

[00:40:14]>> Familiar with him.

[00:40:15]>> Okay.

[00:40:16]Um, is are there medical personnel in your family?

[00:40:20]>> Yes, my fiance is actually a physician himself.

[00:40:24]>> And was there a discussion with Dr. Bash and your fiance about the propriety and what would be best for your daughter if the primary care remain here in Kansas?

[00:40:36]>> Yes. It was just they would confer with each other if need be since he lives with us in the residence and they communicated with each other about things that were going on with Maya.

[00:40:45]>> Okay. Um, were there communications with um the child's father regarding allowing the child to be in Missouri that would suggest that he objected to her being there?

[00:40:59]>> No, none at all.

[00:41:02]>> And what was your understanding of where the child's residence, the primary residence was?

[00:41:08]>> With me. She was with me a majority of her time.

[00:41:11]>> Okay. Did you procure a um transcript of the testimony from the PFA arising from the incident on November in November of 2024?

[00:41:24]>> Yes, I did.

[00:41:25]>> And was there discussion about where the child lived during that?

[00:41:29]>> Yes, there was. I'm going to direct you to um I guess it would be the very bottom of page 17 and the top of page 18 regarding that series of questions.

[00:41:41]>> Okay.

[00:41:42]>> Uh who was testifying at that time?

[00:41:44]>> Uh myself and Brandon Mcola.

[00:41:46]>> Okay. And so was there a discussion about how long your child had been in the Kansas City area?

[00:41:53]>> Yes, we were discussing um at that point Mary and Charlie was representing me.

[00:41:56]she had misspoke and stated that Maya had lived there um for approximately two years. Um and to which Brandon responded um stating that she had lived only lived in Missouri for about a year and a half, your honor.

[00:42:10]>> Did you believe that to be an admission that the father believed the child to be a resident of the state of Missouri during that time?

[00:42:17]>> Yes. Do you believe that the bulk of the evidence regarding the child's uh development uh at this point in time uh would be in Missouri where she had spent the bulk of the last um year? Well, it would be about two years now >> in Missouri.

[00:42:37]>> Yes.

[00:42:38]>> Yes, I do. because she's developed into many groups and activities and friends that we've created a a school environment and a home environment there with lots of people surrounding her life. Okay.

[00:42:49]>> Have you attempted to gain any uh parenting time with your child since you were served with these protective orders?

[00:42:57]>> No. Out of fear that it would cause further issues with the court.

[00:43:00]>> Okay. And um that being said, you did file particular um pleadings within the state of Missouri. Is that correct?

[00:43:11]>> I did. Yes.

[00:43:12]>> Um with the time frames involved, what was the reason for the delay from November to when you did file?

[00:43:21]>> Um because I was aware I was told um under rumor that Brandon had filed something, but I had never been served with anything. And so waiting to see my child, I really needed to get something going so that I could see her. Um, and so I was I was waiting for him to get that served to me so I could object the Kansas filing, which that didn't happen.

[00:43:39]So my Missouri lawyer suggested we go ahead and file since I had not been served.

[00:43:44]>> Okay. And do you know if the Missouri uh process was served on uh the child's father before his Kansas was service was uh obtained upon you? Yes, I believe it was he was served on May 1st. Um, and I believe I was served approximately two weeks later.

[00:44:02]>> Okay. Um, how many witnesses do you think there are that would be relevant for the court's consideration uh of child um your child's presence in the state of Missouri during that basically 18 months time period before this incident?

[00:44:18]>> Actively today, I have at least five people willing to testify over Zoom.

[00:44:21]There's multiple others. I would say probably 10 to 15 in total I could gather, but actively today there'd be five willing to come forward right now.

[00:44:29]>> Okay. Um the series of events that occurred um on that November date in 2024, uh what was the purpose of the meeting between you and the petitioner? Um, as regular, Brandon gets off work that Saturday at 6 PM. And just like every other weekend, other than the time she stayed to go to church on Sunday, I would meet him since I lived in Raytown with Maya, I would drive down to his his employer at Simmons Poo to exchange custody of Maya so that he may have her from Saturday until Tuesday when we exchanged custody again. Okay.

[00:45:06]>> And you were not convicted of any of the offenses alleged in the um incident of November 2024, were you? No, I was not.

[00:45:18]>> Based upon the activity uh documentation that you have, um do you believe that the uh substantial portion of the evidence relevant to home state is going to be in the state of Missouri?

[00:45:33]>> I do. Yes.

[00:45:36]Um, his action was filed apparently on Give me just a moment here, your honor.

[00:45:49]His action was filed on November 25th of 2024. Is that correct?

[00:45:53]>> Yes, it is.

[00:45:54]>> And had the child lived in the state of Kansas uh for UCCCJA jurisdiction to attach?

[00:46:01]>> No. She was exchanged to her father that follow that previous Saturday and prior to that she had spent a majority of her time with me in Raytown.

[00:46:08]>> Okay. Um are his allegations that the child lived in Eureka, Kansas only uh a correct representation of the facts?

[00:46:17]>> No, they're not.

[00:46:19]Um, are you asking this court to dismiss this uh case based upon the fact that Kansas is not the home state and what was provided to the court was an inaccurate statement of facts?

[00:46:36]>> Yes, I am.

[00:46:38]um you you understand what your obligations as far as a parent would be to allow ongoing parenting time with him in the event that the court retains jurisdiction uh for uh allowing him to see the child.

[00:46:56]>> Yeah, I understand that it's very important for my daughter to have both her parents in her life. I've always enforced that issue and that's why we've never gone to court prior to that because I didn't need someone to tell me that. So, I've always made sure that he's been a part of her life and I plan to continue to do that.

[00:47:16]Now, just so we're clear, your agreements were never reduced to writing or filed with any court before or even after you moved to Missouri. Correct.

[00:47:31]>> That is correct, your honor. They were just verbal agreements between the two of us. Okay. And council, can you make uh the transcript pliffs too and I will take judicial notice of it and make sure um that Mr. McCulk's uh council gets a copy of it.

[00:47:52]>> What do you want to mark, your honor?

[00:47:54]>> Uh I think it would be um respondents two or respondents B. I'm sorry.

[00:48:01]>> Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure.

[00:48:03]>> Yeah.

[00:48:04]Um, >> and that would be the PFA transcript with Judge Webster.

[00:48:11]>> That is >> you refer to as statements made about >> right >> custodial or residency implications.

[00:48:21]>> Would it be a benefit for the court to have the uh colorcoded schedule of the dates that the child was with my client and the dates that the child was with the uh petitioner? Well, I mean you have to offer that as an exhibit.

[00:48:35]>> That's what I'm doing at this point in time. I'm making that offer based upon the testimony of my client.

[00:48:39]>> As C.

[00:48:40]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:48:41]>> Any objection? Not necessarily. Well, to the admissibility, but it's just the whatever weight. It's just her testimony at this point.

[00:48:50]>> No, your honor.

[00:48:51]>> All right. C will be admitted >> and I think we've already presented to the court in uh the various attachments uh with our original objection uh a series of Missouri uh pleadings. We're asking the court to take uh judicial notice of those as well.

[00:49:18]I don't know if I can take judicial notice of uh Jackson County, Missouri pleadings or not. Um >> about if I offer them uh I don't know if the court wants me to get blue back versions or not, but >> yeah, they might need to be authenticated.

[00:49:38]Um and I would just do the whole file if I were you.

[00:49:42]>> Yes.

[00:49:43]>> Okay. Uh, I would offer that, your honor, uh, as respondents exhibit D.

[00:49:50]>> Yes. Okay. I'm I'm going to conditionally admit D if they uh, pri provide authenticated copies.

[00:50:02]Um, Mr. Stewart.

[00:50:11]>> Uh, no objection, your honor.

[00:50:12]>> Okay. Thank you.

[00:50:15]Anything else, >> your honor, in the interest of time, and I do need to let the court know, I am also scheduled at three in front of Chief Judge Wine in a Coffee County contested matter. I apologize that I did not know that these were going to get shoved back to back, and that one has become extremely complicated.

[00:50:32]>> Okay. Is that a Zoom?

[00:50:34]>> Yes, it is.

[00:50:35]>> Okay.

[00:50:37]All right. Cross-examination of this witness, Mr. Seard.

[00:50:44]Um yes, your honor. Thank you. Um let's go back to um the November 24 um date.

[00:50:55]Um you were arrested for um domestic battery charge. Is that correct?

[00:51:01]>> That is correct.

[00:51:04]>> How long were you imprisoned initially on that case?

[00:51:08]>> I believe it was three days total.

[00:51:11]three days.

[00:51:14]Um, was there anyone besides the petitioner available to help the daughter from your side of the family?

[00:51:24]>> Again, she was dropped off to her dad.

[00:51:26]That was what the exchange was for. It was his normal visiting time with her.

[00:51:29]So, there was nobody else needed.

[00:51:34]>> Okay.

[00:51:35]Then also on that case, um, was there ever a no contact order between you and the daughter issued by Lions County?

[00:51:47]>> For Brandon and I, I believe there was.

[00:51:52]>> So during that whole case, they never issued one against the daughter and you?

[00:51:57]>> I don't recall. I'm not sure.

[00:52:00]>> Okay.

[00:52:02]I I I know this to me this is formal but it's informal.

[00:52:09]So if you I I I want to make this happen. So if you want to ask that the court admit uh defend uh it would be petitioners exhibit three.

[00:52:34]um which would be any uh bond orders or bond conditions and or any journal entries from Lion County. I would admit and take judicial notice of those documents as well.

[00:52:53]>> Yes, your honor. I'd like to do that.

[00:52:56]>> Just don't rely on anything that Mr. Miller doesn't have and vice versa available or provided.

[00:53:03]>> Okay.

[00:53:05]So, does anybody So, I don't know the answer to that question. She says she's not sure. I don't know if you have any evidence, but if that's a point you want to make, you certainly can produce either a judge's order from an appearance or a bond ordering condition or a journal entry.

[00:53:33]Um, I'm not going to produce anything.

[00:53:35]Um, your honor. Um, I will reserve that for my client's testimony.

[00:53:41]>> Okay.

[00:53:44]>> Go ahead.

[00:53:46]>> Um, how how many exchanges would you say you did um during that year when you lived in Missouri?

[00:53:56]>> Uh, we exchanged approximately twice a week. every Wednesday or every Tuesday and Saturday.

[00:54:04]>> Can you give me a total number for that?

[00:54:07]>> I'd have to count. I've got about 65 pages of documents to to show our exchanges. So, if you'll give me a second, I'll gladly do that.

[00:55:08]It would really help me if we focused on from May 1st or whatever.

[00:55:24]the six months prior to the emergency order or the filing of the paternity action here, what their schedule was, what the exchange was, how many days. I I'm just still not convinced, Mr. Miller, that it's day for day kind of thing if they were essentially physically sharing the child.

[00:55:52]Well, your honor, I don't know how you're defining shared. Um, I way I see it is if she has the child five days and he has a child two days, that's not a shared custody situation. She was making sure that he got to see the child on his days off.

[00:56:09]>> I mean, the what I'm looking at for shared is you're she just testified that she drove to Kansas and dropped her daughter off to the father.

[00:56:20]That's shared.

[00:56:22]>> No, >> let's let's keep I am really trying to make a record here. I trust both of you for appellet purposes, >> right? So, let's keep going uh to hear what her testimony is going to be about the sort of de facto, if you will, situation with these parties prior to her arrest in November and certainly the six months prior.

[00:56:49]>> Okay. Well, I can start in October.

[00:56:51]There were five exchanges. Um and out of the October month, Maya spent 23 days with me and eight days with her father.

[00:57:02]In September, she spent 21 days with me and nine days with her father.

[00:57:09]And there were, sorry, I I correct myself on the last, there wasn't five exchanges because there's twice a week, so 10 exchanges during that month. Um, and then September, there were also 10 exchanges. And as I stated, 21 days with me, nine days with her father. Uh in August there were 18 days spent with me and 13 days spent with her father and 10 exchanges there as well.

[00:57:36]In July, there were 19 days spent with me and 12 days spent with uh her father and there were 10 exchanges there.

[00:57:54]Um in June, that was a little bit different month. During the week of June 9th through the 15th, Maya actually did not spend any time with either one of us. She was out of state with um her grandmother and her aunt uh in Arkansas, which she was actually abandoned there by her aunt who took off with the vehicle and left them and my daughter to get back on their own. Um Brandon's now girlfriend had to drive down there and pick up.

[00:58:22]>> I think we're kind of veering off. I don't think I asked anything about Arkansas.

[00:58:27]>> Okay. Sustained. Go ahead and stick with You're doing a great job. just stick with those months and your calculations.

[00:58:34]>> Okay. Yes. I apologize. So, she, like I said, that week she wasn't with either of us. There was no exchanges that first week. Um, she, so the month of June, she spent 21 days with me and four days with her father.

[00:58:50]Um, and then the rest of that time she was spent with her her uh grandmother and aunt. So, there were seven exchanges that month.

[00:59:00]Okay.

[00:59:02]>> Where did the grandmother and aunt live?

[00:59:06]>> In Climax.

[00:59:07]>> Oh, okay. They went to Arkansas. Okay.

[00:59:10]My part.

[00:59:10]>> Correct. Yes.

[00:59:12]>> And how long were they in Arkansas?

[00:59:15]>> As I stated, let me look again.

[00:59:19]Uh, from Sunday, June 9th to Saturday, June 15th.

[00:59:26]Go.

[00:59:29]In May, Maya had spent 24 days with me and seven days with her father. And there were, it looks like, seven exchanges for that.

[00:59:40]Uh, she spent a majority of that month with me going on vacation to Louisiana.

[00:59:46]>> Okay.

[00:59:48]So, I guess tell me more about your guys's verbal arrangement. Um cuz it sounds to me like that was shared custody, but what was your take on it?

[00:59:59]>> Ever since Brandon started his job at Simmons Pet Food, I don't know exactly when that was. I want to say it was about four to five years ago. Um we've had the same custody arrangement since then because he worked during that time Wednesday through Saturday. Um and so I always had Maya on those days because he had to get up and leave for work at 4:00 in the morning and didn't return home until 7:30 p.m. So Maya stayed with me during those times. Um, when I moved up to Kansas City, because of the way his work schedule lines out, half days on Wednesdays, we would exchange Maya on Tuesdays quite often. Um, as well as Wednesday during midday, I would pick her up at 11:00 a.m. before he started his shift at Simmons.

[01:00:41]>> And did you have any type of work schedule during this time frame?

[01:00:46]>> Um, during prior to this event, uh, I was not working. I haven't been working since January 1st of 2020.

[01:00:55]Um 4.

[01:01:01]>> Um I guess um prior to the move to Missouri, you were living in Kansas, correct?

[01:01:11]>> Correct.

[01:01:12]>> Uh how long did you live in Kansas?

[01:01:14]>> I grew up in Kansas.

[01:01:17]>> Okay. So, how long have you lived in Kansas?

[01:01:21]>> Um, I'm about to be 30 years old. So, I would say 26 years or 27 years.

[01:01:29]>> You've lived in Kansas for 27 years. Is that what you said?

[01:01:32]>> Correct.

[01:01:35]>> What prompted the move?

[01:01:37]>> Um, I have been with my fiance now for going on four years. We were together at a little over a year and a half at the time of my move and consent from Brandon. So, we decided to let Maya finish the school year out there. She was being severely bullied in school.

[01:01:52]Um, and so we both made the decision that even prior to deciding to move to Kansas City, we were going to homeschool her. Um, and then since we decided to homeschool her, that made the move up there easier to work between her getting to see her dad and spending time with me as well. So, we went ahead and moved up there after she finished school in May.

[01:02:14]Um, tell me a little bit about this homeschooling. What kind of uh curriculum or schedule were you following on that?

[01:02:22]>> Maya participated in two different accredited programs. She participated in MIA Academy and Splash Learn. Um, and those were done just intermittently to supplement the paperwork that she was doing at home with a with a schedule that we created. I also have documents and and stuff to back that up if I need to provide it. Mhm.

[01:02:43]>> Uh, do you have any knowledge of her being held back in school?

[01:02:48]>> I do. I'm aware. I called the school.

[01:02:50]She was already behind before she left public school. They were going to have her in summer school. I have statements from the school on that as well. Um, during her first grade year, she was she was going to be required to go to summer school prior to our move. Um, and that was also a driving factor in why we started to homeschool her because Maya was being held in special classes and needed more one-on-one time. So, I'm aware she's been held behind um as she's still behind with school. She struggles to learn.

[01:03:19]>> Um and so you're testifying that she was never enrolled in a Missouri school. Is that correct?

[01:03:26]>> She was homeschooled.

[01:03:27]>> Yeah. How long was she enrolled in a Kansas school?

[01:03:33]>> For a year and a half before or I guess two years. She went to kindergarten and first grade. You said two years >> kindergarten and first grade. Yes.

[01:03:44]>> And then how long did you live in Missouri again?

[01:03:47]>> A year and a half. Okay.

[01:03:51]>> I mean I live for longer obviously, but prior to this incident, a year and a half.

[01:03:57]>> Okay.

[01:03:59]Um tell me um what kind of health insurance your daughter has.

[01:04:07]Uh, as far as I'm aware, she currently has her father's insurance. He's been telling me for three years that he was going to get her on his work insurance and I believe finally did as of January.

[01:04:20]>> Has she ever had health insurance in Missouri?

[01:04:24]>> No, she has not had health insurance in Missouri.

[01:04:29]>> Is there any reason why? because again her father continuously told me he was going to add her to his work insurance and so I was waiting for that to happen.

[01:04:41]>> So it sounds like right now she has Kansas health insurance. Is that correct?

[01:04:46]>> Correct.

[01:04:47]>> Has she had that most of her life to your knowledge?

[01:04:50]>> Prior to that and prior to COVID I believe in 2020 prior to our move 2022 was the last year that we had applied for Medicaid. She was on medic under me because she primarily lived with me. Um, and and I didn't make very much money. So, she was on the Medicaid in Kansas for honestly probably almost since she was born, I believe.

[01:05:16]>> So, can you just summarize how many years you think that was?

[01:05:24]>> 2016 to 2021 or 2022. I apologize. So, Five years, six years.

[01:05:35]>> Okay.

[01:05:40]>> Um, you said prior to you leaving for Missouri, you just said that you had the primary residential custody of the child. Is that correct?

[01:05:50]>> That is correct. She spent a majority of her time with me and she continued to do so after I moved to Missouri.

[01:05:57]Now again, was that because of the father's work schedule?

[01:06:02]>> Correct.

[01:06:04]>> So he wasn't seeing her because he was at work. Is that what >> Because he was choosing not to have her in the evenings after work because that was more convenient for his work schedule.

[01:06:15]>> Did he ever have her in the evenings?

[01:06:18]>> No.

[01:06:19]Throughout her whole life, he's never had her during the week nights.

[01:06:26]>> Anytime she was supposed to be with me, she was with me. Unless Brandon had a special family event going on, he rarely offer asked to take her with him outside of those events.

[01:06:39]>> But you said he still So tell me again what days he did have the child.

[01:06:43]>> During the evening?

[01:06:45]>> No. What days did he normally have the child >> from? You typically when before we before we moved it was usually Saturday.

[01:06:53]He would get her back Saturday night after work. We would drop her off there a at his ending of his schedule at 6 p.m. and then she would return to me either Tuesday night or Wednesday at 11:30 a.m. which I would pick her up before he started his shift on Wednesday.

[01:07:09]>> And who was we? You just said we would drop her off >> several times. My fiance had come with us.

[01:07:18]So he would travel all the way to Kansas to be with you guys.

[01:07:23]>> Yes.

[01:07:27]>> I'm sorry. You said just Saturday was the only day.

[01:07:29]>> No, Saturday through Wednesday or Tuesday depending on what brain you worked. A lot of times he wanted to drop her off to me in Bato Junction on Tuesday, but if not, we would pick her up on Wednesday at 11:30 prior to his work shift.

[01:07:44]>> Okay. So, Saturday through Wednesday were Brandon Brandon's or uh yeah, Brandon's days. Is that correct?

[01:07:51]>> Saturday night through Wednesday. Yes.

[01:07:54]He didn't get her until 6 p.m. on Saturday.

[01:07:57]>> Okay.

[01:08:04]>> I mean, that still sounds like half the time to me.

[01:08:10]I have text messages to back up the exchanges that'll be shared in the documents. I'm sure um Brandon and I have communicated about the exchanges on a regular basis through text. I would say there's at least 60% of these exchanges will be backed up by text proof um showing exactly how much time she spent with me. And as I said, I went through the dates. She spent a majority of her time with me because of the way her schedule lined out. And she spent several Sundays. She stayed longer to go to church with us as well. Those are also all documented in this document.

[01:08:53]I guess just what we're talking about right now is all the time prior to the Missouri move >> and Saturday to win.

[01:09:18]All right. Good afternoon. Um, I don't know who all we have here, but we should have uh Ariana Mock.

[01:09:31]>> She's looking >> Mr. Miller at his office by Zoom.

[01:09:36]Then we should have uh Brandon Mcola and he's appearing by Zoom separately from his attorney, Mr. Seard with Stang Law Firm.

[01:09:53]um by virtue of his entry of appearance and there may have been a request for withdrawal but Mr. McClendon of Eureka is no longer on the case.

[01:10:09]The rest of the folks who are potential witnesses I presume I'm going to have in the waiting room and we will call them one at a time as needed.

[01:10:26]This is a paternity action filed in Greenwood County disord.

[01:10:43]works by >> Brandon McCullik back on or about November or December of 2024. four.

[01:11:16]kind of trying to figure out why the emergency temporary order uh was signed on November 26, 24 in 24 DM 53, but the petition wasn't filed 123 of 24.

[01:11:49]Um, but be that as it may, that was around the time frame of this case being filed with a notice of hearing for December 13th of 24, at which time Mr. Clinton appeared with his client and we were advised that there was no service that was obtained and was rescheduled and still no service obtained and alias summons was issued and still no service has been obtained.

[01:12:31]Um, and I don't know if I made an actual finding, but Mr. McClendon alluded to the fact that he believed Ms. Mock was avoiding service, that efforts had been made in Jackson County, Missouri, I believe, to serve her, but that um she wasn't accepting service of this case.

[01:12:57]It all arose though out of a PFA that was filed in Greenwood County from an incident that happened in Lion County because Mr. McCullik is a resident of Greenwood County. I believe he leaves lives in um Madison. But anyway, Judge Webster issued a temporary order uh protection from abuse in Greenwood County District Court case in 2024 DM52.

[01:13:36]Um, which is probably what prompted uh emergency exparte order to be filed based on that action. But that action did not include the child initially. The child was referenced. the child was present during the incident in Lion County during an exchange.

[01:14:10]Um, but it does not look like Judge Webster included the child in that order.

[01:14:18]Subsequently, um, Miss Mont filed her own paternity action in Jackson County, Missouri after Greenwood County case was filed.

[01:14:45]Um, and she did uh obtain service and both parties had at least temporary representation.

[01:14:58]um in that case and I believe an order of stay was issued pending the motion to dismiss filed by Miss McK by and through her attorney Mr. Miller, I guess not filed by her. She's not still not accepted jurisdiction of this court.

[01:15:31]Um, but filed through councel.

[01:15:36]Um, a motion to dismiss. It was stayed. I did confer with Judge Jessica Agnelli after we got a copy of her order where she continued a hearing and stayed the proceedings and it's my understanding during our UCCCJA conference that her analysis anyway with regard to staying the proceeding is she believes under UCCJ JA um the jurisdiction lies with um the jurisdiction in which the action was first commenced.

[01:16:20]So she did not make a finding unlike a a petition or temporary order in a de a divorce case that um first serve takes priority but rather um if if jurisdiction could be had in either or both jurisdiction that commencement control.

[01:16:47]Now, you all can can correct me if I'm wrong, but my take on this case um and I noted that in my order, my emergency protection order, uh which my view is that under a PFA, the court can always take temporary jurisdiction of children, um but it's temporary, um and uh should defer to any domestic filings involving custody unless there's direct abuse of the child that warrants a long-term PFA. But at any rate, um my take when I noted their custody arrangement was that this is not a divorce case. There's no divorce on file.

[01:17:45]There was no custody case on file. The party this child was eight years old. So this these parties had been sharing this child.

[01:17:56]Um dad was acknowledged as the father.

[01:18:01]He has the last name and I believe he was on the birth certificate. So he's presumptively the father of this child.

[01:18:09]And although they hadn't been awarded joint custody by any court or shared custody or a parenting plan on file that essentially they were engaging in the sharing of this child even when she moved to another state, they shared custody of this child. maybe not shared custody in the custodial sense of um a shared residential plan but just shared custody of the child. So, um, you know, I issued a temporary order and t took jurisdiction of of the case, but I anticipated service on Miss Mock that was not affectuated for whatever reason.

[01:19:00]And so, um, we're here on a motion to dismiss and I believe a stay on the Jackson County case, but you all can correct me as we go through. That's just sort of my general summary um of what I understand the current status of the case to be. And Mr. Miller, it's your motion to dismiss, so I'll let you proceed first.

[01:19:25]>> Very good. Thank you, your honor. Uh I know that there's been a flurry of filings this morning. Has the court had an opportunity to review those? Um, I think I reviewed uh at about 11:45 or something the answer to the mo uh there was a response there was an answer to the motion dismiss and then there was a response to petitioner's answer by you. Um there but other than that there are a couple of exhibits that have been sent here that I really have not looked at and if you had any exhibits Mr. Miller I've not looked at those either.

[01:20:09]>> Very good. Uh your honor, if I might bring you to speed at uh looked like 11:03 this morning, opposing council filed a response to my response indicating that the case, the Missouri case had been dismissed. I think that's probably an overstatement. Uh I think that they also sent us a copy of the um order uh staying the proceedings out of Missouri and there is a case management conference set September the 2nd, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. So the Missouri case has not been dismissed. It stayed as was this case.

[01:20:49]Um Judge, if I might as kind of a explanatory situation, I think you're pretty good on the facts. um to date.

[01:20:57]However, the filing by the uh petitioner in this case was based upon his claim that Kansas was the UCCCJA home state.

[01:21:09]And as of course, this court is well aware that there has to be at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of the custody proceeding. And in this case, that is not what happened. Mr. Makulla did not disclose to the force that the child had been living in the state of Missouri. Um in his UCCCJA affidavit uh yet uh as indicated in my response um in his answer he had indicated that the mother lived in Missouri from May 18th of 23 to November 23rd of 2024.

[01:21:45]that would certainly indicate that the child lived in a different state um within the six months immediately preceding the filing of the commencement of this matter. Um he also testified in a uh PFA case in Greenwood County that she's only been in Kansas City for about a year and a half, your honor. So he under his sworn testimony >> where uh I I shoot I don't have we need to mark the petition >> or whatever document you're referring to because I don't know for sure whether he was referencing that mom had been in Kansas City just that long just the year or if the child >> that uh is included in the transcript you're kind of the problem with doing this by Zoom when I have uh six or seven witnesses and multiple documents. Uh but the court could take judicial notice and the real concern is the um UCCC JA affidavit in this Greenwood County case that indicates that the minor child lived at and then he references um June 24 to current and it says Eureka, Kansas. uh doesn't say that was by Risha and then there's a Brandon Mcola indicating that he had lived there but as far as where the child has lived he does not indicate or disclose to the court that this child had been living in the state of Missouri uh for months immediately preceding the filing.

[01:23:24]>> Okay. Well, I will take judicial notice.

[01:23:27]Um I guess that will be um you want that to be respondents one I mean A I'm sorry A >> A is fine your honor.

[01:23:40]>> Okay.

[01:23:41]>> But based upon that your honor >> that but I don't have the transcript.

[01:23:46]>> I I know we just got it yesterday morning. Okay.

[01:23:49]>> And I wasn't sure how you wanted to do this. Uh, like I said, I'm I know during COVID we did a lot of Zoom evidentiary hearings, but since then I know most judges don't like that, especially when we've got a lot of documentation and number of witnesses to testify.

[01:24:05]>> Well, I prefer in person, but I can't always expedite hearings in Greenwood County because of availability of courtroom and making sure it gets cleared with everybody. Also, I knew your client was from Kansas City and there might be witnesses from different locations.

[01:24:25]Um, and I I thought I was accommodating the parties. Um, and I wanted to get this set, you know, relatively quick, especially given the fact that your client is not receiving any visitation of the child. But I I am happy to schedule this in person if you feel like um your client would get the kind of you know hearing that you want and um do that. I guess I was just trying to get something moving um in this case.

[01:25:04]Um >> I understand that so many issues >> it is a significant issue for my client.

[01:25:11]Uh however, as indicated this PFA that has been filed, the child is not listed as a protected party and there is really no reason uh why the the incidents were between the parents and not the child.

[01:25:27]Uh so that's part of the motion to dismiss that I have filed herein. As far as the UCCCJ jurisdiction, >> right, that's a legal matter and I do want to hear from you on that. But just keep in mind for me if a child witnesses domestic abuse between parents that can be as damaging uh as abuse um you know smacking them or hitting them but I don't think that the case law necessarily supports that for a one-year protection order involving a child. I think that um it really has to constitute physical harm um to get a final order um that involves the child with no contact at all by the other other parent. So it it's I I just want you to know just because the child it was between the parties I do think it is important or a factor that the child was present but go ahead.

[01:26:38]>> All right very well. Thank you your honor. Um, if you want to get to the legal analysis, uh, without having UCCCJA jurisdiction or at least, uh, trying to get that without, uh, disclosing to the court that the child had been, uh, living in another state within the months immediately preceding the filing of his petition. I think there's been kind of an overstep and maybe a misrepresentation. There was no need for an emergency jurisdiction in this case because the child was not one of the protected parties. Um, if the court wants to hear testimony today, I can attempt to do it. I think it would probably be easier for the court to have the parties in personal as well as the witnesses and the exhibits.

[01:27:25]I would ask the court to consider um lifting any no contact order and allowing my client to have parenting time in uh pending the actual in-person hearing uh for presentation of evidence.

[01:27:39]How do I ensure though with either one of these parents and the measures that they've gone to and the controversial nature of these proceedings and their relationship um which is high conflict? How do I ensure that either one of them aren't going to run off with the child and not return uh jurisdiction to whatever court um makes orders believing that it has proper jurisdiction until or unless appealed to a higher court. Okay, your honor, my respon my response to that would be KSA23-3203 that obviously withholding a child from another parent is a consideration of the court. Uh I have also as a practical matter u told my client that in the event that you were granted visitation and that you did not comply with court orders that that pretty much ends the argument. Uh, and I'm sure that the court would take compliance with the existing court orders into effect. I'm just I'm quite frankly a little stunned that with the misrepresentation of the court that he had UCCCJ jurisdiction without disclosing what the facts were that there may be as well as some of the wording in the pleadings that there might be an overstep try to gain an advantage.

[01:29:18]Okay.

[01:29:20]>> Um, how about this question?

[01:29:24]If you are asking for a dismissal based on law, UCCCJA and the argument that this court does not have jurisdiction, not home state jurisdiction or even UCCCJA jurisdiction in this matter.

[01:29:41]Then how how do I have she's not accepted jurisdiction of this court?

[01:29:51]How do I make orders for parenting time without having jurisdiction of her in this case?

[01:30:03]>> I guess that's why you wear the robe, your honor. Uh but if the court just wants to take the legal question because if you don't have jurisdiction, then the matter should be dismissed. I think we've laid out in writing the answers um to the legal inquiries.

[01:30:21]Um but as far as the parenting time, that's where most of the witnesses lie as far as their the validity of their presentation. Uh because we do have an admission uh in the answer of where the child had I mean it's in the petitioner's own answer that the child had lived uh in Missouri. So, he did not have uh six months of consecutive um Kansas residency for the child before he filed this matter.

[01:30:54]>> Well, what about his argument that her the majority of her life was spent in Eureka or Greenwood County, Kansas, and or Lying County, but definitely in Kansas. Um, and that even if she was there with mom that it may or may not been intended for her to return. I mean, h how do you look at residency when a child is born in a certain state, has significant ties and connections there, dad's still here, he's never left. um they're sharing custody even though there's no court order. Um but she's going to see mom in or staying with mom in Missouri.

[01:31:49]>> Well, your honor, the answer to that is the she wasn't just visiting mom. The fact is, and I think the statements that the um petitioner has already stated is the child moved with mom to Missouri and had been there for a year and a half. I believe the visitation was where the father was getting the child on the weekends. Um, and so if you're looking at it from the time spin analysis, the child was living in Missouri with mom.

[01:32:19]So I think that with the most recent period of time, the uh most time of the child being with mom in Missouri, that's where the more relevant uh witnesses and evidence is going to be, not what was going on a year and a half, two years ago at this point in time, but what had happened up to the date that this hearing had uh excuse me, when this incident occurred.

[01:32:45]>> Judge, if I could say something real quick. I yeah, I was just getting ready to get to you. So, yes, the the respondent is contending that Missouri is the home state. Um, I submitted as evidence today to the court for this hearing. There is an order from that Missouri court and it says in it it quote Missouri is not the home state of the child and this court does not have statutory authority to enter initial child custody determination under the UCCCJA.

[01:33:18]So Missouri has already claimed they're not the home state. That leaves Kansas as the remaining court of jurisdiction.

[01:33:28]Your honor, the rest of that uh order staying proceeding says though, however, pursuant to Missouri law, this court shall stay further action until the court in Kansas makes a determination on whether it will accept home state jurisdiction in the event Kansas does not accept home state jurisdiction. This court will accept jurisdiction if otherwise appropriate to UCCCJA and it set the matter for a case management conference in September.

[01:33:59]And I I would like to address the amen emergency temporary jurisdiction issue.

[01:34:05]>> Okay. All right. Go ahead.

[01:34:07]>> Um judge, the respondent was arrested on on the date in question. Once she's arrested, that child was abandoned by her and the father had to step in and take custody.

[01:34:24]that is a grounds for that emergency jurisdiction >> and as soon as that happens this court has the jurisdiction of this case.

[01:34:34]>> Your honor in in response I would suggest to the court that she was not permitted to have any contact with the petitioner in this case as a result of the PFA that he immediately filed. So she was not able to make contact with him to try to gain the child back. and in contacting Missouri council uh she was able to finally get the paternity matter on file.

[01:34:58]>> Well, I do I do I am finding that um this court had emergency temporary jurisdiction. the child was physically present in this state when this incident occurred. And if one parent becomes unavailable for whatever reason and lives in another state, whether it's a car accident or whatever the they get arrested or whatever the case may be, uh, and the other parent needs a lawful court order or wants one of custody. Um I I think that I mean mind you there's substantial ties and connection to these communities and to the state. But setting that aside I I believe that there was emergency jurisdiction but we are past that now.

[01:35:51]We're trying to make a determination about final jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction. What court has that? I I think that they can move to dismiss our temporary jurisdiction because it's their belief that Missouri has proper jurisdiction and will exercise jurisdiction if this court dismisses its action.

[01:36:21]Um or I think this court can find um that it has controlling jurisdiction and that um I think the other state will defer jurisdiction uh to this court based on the commencement of the proceeding in Greenwood County that pre-dates the um Jackson County, Missouri case.

[01:36:53]>> Let me look here. Um you know, the part of the problem here these days I'm finding and there's no real solution to it is these laws were created during times where things were more traditional and um where folks were married, got divorced, moved to another state.

[01:37:15]um people are much more mobile and they're acting without any court orders um into teenage years of a child's life. And it's hard to determine what's actually been de facto and what um where the jurisdiction lies. Um sometimes >> your honor, may I say something quickly?

[01:37:42]>> Yes. I I think when you talk about commencement of an action, you not you don't just have the filing, but you also have service as a component of the commencement of an action. When you're looking at jurisdiction on limitations and things like that, if you don't get service on them, uh your your time can run. And I think that's the same analysis this court should make is is that although the filing occurred, they didn't get service on my client until well after he'd been served. In fact, looking at things, it appears that the summons uh was not issued until after he got served.

[01:38:23]>> All right. Well, hang on a minute. U I I didn't say that was my necessarily finding an interpretation. I said that it was my understanding that um when the Jackson County judge, Judge Agnelli, made her determination, she made it based on her belief that UCCCJA um when it talked about commencement, she believed that to be equivalent to filing an action and his paternity action to seek custody orders was filed.

[01:39:00]first.

[01:39:04]So, um, December, January, February Your honor, if I might, the bulk of the testimony and evidence regarding the child's environment, uh, observers, etc., would be in Missouri, not in Kansas.

[01:39:54]So if no state qualifies as the home state, a state can exercise jurisdiction if the child and at least one parent have a significant connection to the state and substantial evidence about the child's care is available there. That applies here.

[01:40:17]But what constitutes a finding that there is essentially no home state?

[01:40:26]And that was my question to you. Can this court find because there was no lawful custody order in existence and these parties just had sort of an informal arrangement and they each got parenting time because I think before that year she lived here, she lived there, she went to school here, then she went with mom that they shared their arrangements with the child that there really wasn't a permanent intended home state of the child. Can this because if this court finds that there's no state qualifies as the home state per se that um Kansas has jurisdiction because dad has remained here and this is where the child was born and has substantial ties and connections.

[01:41:29]Even your client has substantial ties and connections to Greenwood County and um what I'm reading here that I I have to look at UCCCJA every time and try to retrace and re-establish the connections there. But it clearly says in situations where a child is at risk, uh, the court can exercise temporary jurisdiction to protect the child even if it's not the home state or a significant connection state. I think this was a significant connection state, but either way, temporary jurisdiction was appropriate.

[01:42:21]>> Can I add something?

[01:42:23]>> Yeah, just a minute.

[01:42:24]>> Okay.

[01:42:47]All right. Yes. Response.

[01:42:51]>> Um, judge. I think under 204B um that temporary emergency jurisdiction can become the final determination and it can become the home state of the child um if no other state has any prior child custody determinations and so I think or proceedings. So I think that's what we have in this case.

[01:43:21]So that emergency jurisdiction can turn into the home state.

[01:43:26]>> Okay. Give me that site again that you're relying on.

[01:43:29]>> Uh it's 204B and then the Kansas one is 23-37204B.

[01:43:41]Me just a minute.

[01:43:55]That would kind of make sense to me in situations where parents just engage in parenting and custody back and forth with no no real orders, no real child support, nothing. Um, it's just very loose and very informal. no matter where it's occurring at.

[01:44:17]Um, that would make sense to me, but I don't know that that is.

[01:44:23]I I don't know that's how it reads. Just because I think something makes sense to me doesn't mean that's legally correct.

[01:44:33]My concern, your honor, is is that there was not six months um underneath the belt before he filed.

[01:44:41]Even though there might have been emergency debt, not automatically extend given the right to use the emergency orders since