Get Answers Today 601.202.5594
Live the Life You Were Intended to Lead We'll Make Sure Your Family Remains Secure & Intact

Its Risky to Sleep on Your Rights, Even if You Think You are Right!

In Shadden v. Shadden, the Mississippi Courts declined to set aside a California order, even though it appeared California did not have jurisdiction, because the respondent Mother did not contest the California action. The divorce was in California in 2005. The Mother, Dana, was granted custody. Thereafter Father, Keith, moved to Wyoming and Dana and the children moved to Mississippi. In 2007, Keith filed a Motion in California to obtain custody of the children. Dana, apparently concluding California lost jurisdiction when everyone moved, did not contest the California action and Keith was awarded custody. Dana filed her own action in Mississippi to enforce the original California order, but the Mississippi Chancellor dismissed her motion, finding that the California order had been entered and she had failed to respond in California. The Court of Appeals affirmed and held that Dana should have responded in California and appealed the verdict, if necessary.

This case clearly proves that playing aggressive games with notions of jurisdiction is very dangerous and a party should make sure it takes nothing for granted.