A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Justice v. Guerrero-Justice, has provided a critical, and mandatory, clarification on the rules governing interstate child custody disputes. The case involved a “race to the courthouse” scenario where a mother filed for divorce in Tennessee, and the father filed for divorce in Florida just two days later. Both parents claimed their chosen state was the child’s “home state.” To resolve the jurisdictional conflict, the Florida trial judge and the Tennessee trial judge held a telephone conference, as permitted by the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (UCCJEA).
Following this conference, the Florida trial court dismissed the father’s case, ruling that Tennessee was the proper state to handle the divorce and custody matters. However, the trial court had conducted this critical, case-deciding conference without providing notice to the parties and without allowing them to participate. The father appealed, arguing this violated his constitutional right to due process.
The Third District Court of Appeal agreed with the father and reversed the dismissal. The appellate court ruled that the trial judge had violated the mandatory requirements of Florida’s UCCJEA statute. That law explicitly states that a court “shall allow the parties to participate” in such a communication and “a record must be made” of it. Because the trial court failed to follow these clear and non-negotiable rules, the father was denied his right to be heard on the most critical issue in his case. This decision is a vital reminder for any parent in Tampa that strict procedural rules govern multi-state custody cases, and a failure to follow them can invalidate an entire order.
What is the UCCJEA, and Why Does It Matter to Your Tampa Divorce?
In our modern, mobile society, it is common for families to cross state lines. A couple may marry in Georgia, have a child in Tampa, and then, upon separation, one parent may wish to move to New York to be near family. This mobility creates one of the most complex and emotionally charged questions in all of family law: Which state has the authority—the “jurisdiction”—to decide the child’s custody?
Before the adoption of the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (UCCJEA), the answer was pure chaos. It often led to a destructive “race to the courthouse,” where the first parent to file a case in their preferred state could win. Worse, it led to “parental kidnapping,” where a parent might abduct a child and take them to a new state to secure a favorable custody order. This resulted in competing, contradictory orders from different states, leaving children and families in a devastating legal limbo.
The UCCJEA was created to solve this problem. It is a uniform law adopted by 49 states (all except Massachusetts) that establishes a clear, consistent, and hierarchical set of rules for determining which one state has the power to make an “initial determination” of child custody.
For any parent in Hillsborough County, the UCCJEA is the first legal question that must be answered in any case involving another state. If you and your child’s other parent live in different states, or if one of you is planning to move from Tampa, you cannot even begin to discuss timesharing or a parenting plan until you have determined which state has the jurisdiction to hear the case. An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer will immediately analyze the UCCJEA factors before any other step is taken.
The “Who Decides?” Test: Determining the Child’s “Home State”
The primary goal of the UCCJEA is to find the child’s “home state.” This is the cornerstone of the entire law. The “home state” is given priority over all other states.
A “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent (or a person acting as a parent) for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.
This is a simple, bright-line test designed to be objective and reduce litigation.
- Example 1: A child is born in Tampa and lives there for three years. The mother and child then move to Atlanta. One month later, the father files for custody in Tampa. Tampa is not the home state because the child has not lived there for the six months immediately preceding the filing. Atlanta is not the home state because the child has only lived there for one month. This creates a more complex jurisdictional issue.
- Example 2: A child is born in Tampa and lives there for three years. The mother and child move to Atlanta. Seven months later, the mother files for custody in Georgia. Georgia is the home state because the child has lived there for more than six consecutive months immediately before she filed.
- Example 3 (The “Look-Back”): A child is born in Tampa and lives there for three years. The mother and child move to Atlanta. One month later, the father (who still lives in Tampa) files for custody in Tampa. In this scenario, Tampa is the home state. This is because of the UCCJEA’s critical “six-month look-back” provision. Florida has jurisdiction because it was the child’s home state within six months before the filing, and a parent (the father) continues to live in Florida.
This “home state” determination was the exact issue the judges in the Justice case were trying to resolve. The father claimed Florida was the home state, and the mother claimed Tennessee was. The determination of this single fact would decide which state got to make all future decisions about their child. This is why the process for making that determination is so vital, and why the trial court’s “secret” conference was such a severe violation of the father’s rights.
The Jurisdictional “Waterfall”: What if There is No Home State?
The UCCJEA is a comprehensive statute. It anticipates scenarios where the “home state” rule does not provide a clear answer (such as in “Example 1” above, where the family has moved frequently and no state meets the six-month requirement). In such cases, the law creates a “waterfall” of jurisdictional tiers. A court can only proceed to the next tier if the one above it does not apply.
Tier 1: Home State Jurisdiction
As discussed, this is the first and most important test. If a state is the “home state,” the inquiry ends. That state has jurisdiction.
Tier 2: “Significant Connection” Jurisdiction
If no state qualifies as the “home state” (or if the home state “declines” jurisdiction), a court can take jurisdiction if:
- The child and at least one parent have a “significant connection” with the state (beyond just being physically present); AND
- There is “substantial evidence” available in that state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
This is a much more subjective test than the “home state” rule. A Tampa divorce lawyer would use this test to argue for jurisdiction if, for example, a family had moved from Tampa to Texas four months ago. Tampa is no longer the “home state,” but it may have “significant connection” jurisdiction because the child’s doctors, teachers, therapists, and extended family members are all still in Tampa.
Tier 3: “More Appropriate Forum”
This tier applies when another state could have jurisdiction under Tier 1 or 2, but has declined to exercise it on the grounds that this state is the “more appropriate forum.”
Tier 4: “Vacuum” Jurisdiction
This is the final backstop. If no court in any other state can or will exercise jurisdiction under the first three tiers, a state can take jurisdiction by default. This is to ensure that a child is not left in a legal “no-man’s-land” without a court to protect them.
The Justice v. Guerrero-Justice Ruling: The Mandatory Rules of Judge-to-Judge Communication
The Justice case involved a “Tier 1” dispute between two states, Florida and Tennessee, both claiming to be the child’s “home state.” To resolve this, the UCCJEA actively encourages the judges from the two states to communicate with each other. This is a vital part of the law’s goal of “promoting cooperation” between courts.
However, the Justice case provides a critical and binding clarification: this communication is not a “secret,” off-the-record chat. It is a formal, quasi-judicial proceeding that is governed by strict, mandatory rules that protect the parents’ constitutional right to due process.
The appellate court, in its analysis, broke down the mandatory requirements of the law (Florida Statute 61.511) that the trial court violated.
1. The Court “Shall” Allow Parties to Participate
The law states, “The court shall allow the parties to participate in the communication.” The appellate court confirmed that the word “shall” is mandatory, not optional. This imposes a duty on the trial court. To “allow” participation, the court mustfirst provide the parties with reasonable notice of the conference before it occurs. The Justice trial court failed to do this, and that was its first, reversible error.
2. The Right to Be Heard
The law continues: “If the parties elect to participate… they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.”
This is the core of the due process violation. The entire case hinged on a factual dispute: where had the child lived? The father was denied the opportunity to have his Tampa divorce lawyer (if he had one at the trial level) present his “facts and legal arguments” to the judges before they made their decision. A parent cannot be stripped of their right to have their case heard in their home state without, at a minimum, being allowed to argue why it is their home state.
3. A Record “Must” Be Made
The law is equally mandatory on this point: “a record must be made of a communication under this section.” This means a court reporter must transcribe the call, or an electronic recording must be made. The purpose is to create a clear record that the parties and the appellate court can review.
4. The Parties “Must” Have Access to the Record
Finally, the statute commands that “The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.” This ensures transparency and gives a Tampa divorce lawyer the ability to review the record to ensure the judges’ discussion was proper and to prepare for a potential appeal if an error was made.
The trial court in Justice failed on all of these points, which is why the appellate court’s reversal was so decisive. The father was denied notice, denied participation, and denied a record. This was a “violation of due process” and required the dismissal to be reversed.
Beyond the “Initial” Case: Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)
The UCCJEA does not just cover the “initial” custody determination. Its second, and arguably more powerful, function is to govern all future modifications. It does this through the concept of “Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction,” or “CEJ.”
This is one of the most important concepts a Tampa divorce lawyer must explain to a client who has a finalized parenting plan.
In simple terms, once a Florida court (e.g., in Hillsborough County) makes a valid, initial child custody determination, that Tampa court has exclusive jurisdiction over that child and that case, forever, as long as one of the key participants (the child, or one of the parents) continues to live in Florida.
This means:
- If you have a Tampa-based parenting plan and your ex-spouse moves with the child to Georgia, they cannot go to a Georgia court in two years and ask a Georgia judge to modify your timesharing.
- The Georgia court has no jurisdiction. The only court on earth that can modify the order is the original Tampa court that issued it.
- This “CEJ” is the legal “leash” that prevents a parent from moving to a new state and “judge shopping” for a more favorable ruling.
The only way for another state to take jurisdiction is if the original Tampa judge first “relinquishes” it, which is a separate and complex legal proceeding.
When a Court Can “Give Up” Jurisdiction
A parent who has moved out of state can file a motion in the original Tampa court asking the judge to “relinquish” jurisdiction, arguing that Florida is now an “inconvenient forum.”
A Tampa divorce lawyer will litigate this motion based on a set of statutory factors. A judge cannot just give the case away. The judge must consider factors such as:
- Whether domestic violence has occurred and which state could best protect the parties.
- The “distance between the courts.”
- The financial hardship on the parties to litigate in one state versus the other.
- Most importantly: the location of the “substantial evidence.” A judge must determine which state has the most evidence about the child’s current life, care, protection, training, and relationships.
If a child has lived in Georgia for five years, their school, doctors, therapists, friends, and “life” are all in Georgia. In that scenario, a Tampa judge would likely find that Florida is an “inconvenient forum” and agree to relinquish its CEJ to a Georgia court.
The Final Exception: Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction
The UCCJEA has one final, critical “safety valve” to protect children from immediate harm. A Tampa court that does nothave normal jurisdiction (e.g., the “home state” is Tennessee) can still issue a temporary order if:
- The child is physically present in Florida; AND
- The child has been abandoned OR it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child from “mistreatment or abuse” or the threat thereof.
This is a powerful but limited tool. It is often used (and misused) in cases involving domestic violence. A Tampa divorce lawyer can file an emergency motion for a parent who has fled to Tampa with their child to escape abuse. The Tampa court can issue a temporary order to protect the child, but it cannot make a final, permanent custody determination. The judge must then immediately communicate with the “home state” court (as in Justice) to determine how to proceed and safely transfer the case.
Conclusion: Interstate Custody is Not a “Do-it-Yourself” Project
The Justice v. Guerrero-Justice decision is a powerful and necessary reminder that the UCCJEA is a complex and mandatory body of law. It is not a set of “suggestions.” Its rules, designed to protect children from chaos and parents from unfairness, are strict. The case confirms that a parent’s right to due process—the right to be notified, to participate, and to have a record—is paramount, even in a “conference” between two judges.
The Father in this case, who represented himself on appeal, was successful on this narrow, procedural point. But this case highlights the incredible risks he took. Navigating the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional “waterfall,” litigating “home state” status, or fighting over “Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction” is one of the most legally complex tasks in all of family law. A single misstep—filing in the wrong state, or failing to preserve a record—can be financially and emotionally devastating.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and your case involves another state, you cannot afford to guess. You need an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer who understands this intricate statute. Contact our office for a consultation to determine your rights, your risks, and the correct legal strategy for your interstate custody case.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the UCCJEA? The UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act) is a law adopted by 49 states that sets clear, uniform rules for which one state has the legal authority, or “jurisdiction,” to make decisions about child custody.
What is a “home state” in a Florida custody case? The “home state” is the state where the child has lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before a custody case is filed. This state has the first and primary right to decide the case.
Can a judge talk to another judge in another state about my case without me? No. As the Justice v. Guerrero-Justicecase confirms, a judge must allow the parties to participate in any substantive communication with another court and mustmake a record of that communication. A “secret” conference is a violation of due process.
I have a Tampa parenting plan, but my ex moved to Georgia. Can a Georgia court change my timesharing? No. As long as you or your child continue to live in Florida, the original Tampa court has “Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction” (CEJ). A Georgia court has no power to modify the Tampa order unless the Tampa judge first agrees to “relinquish” jurisdiction.
What is “Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction”? This is a limited power that allows a Tampa court to issue a temporary, emergency order to protect a child who is physically present in Florida, even if Florida is not their “home state.” This is typically used in cases of abuse, abandonment, or mistreatment.
Divorce Representation You Can Rely On in Tampa
At The McKinney Law Group, we combine knowledge of Florida family law with a practical approach to resolution. Whether through negotiation or litigation, we safeguard your financial and parental interests.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] for guidance.