Summary
reversing divorce court's custody decree even though parties stipulated to that court's ability to determine custody because the children were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court
Summary of this case from Michael M. v. Arizona Department of Economic SecurityOpinion
No. 2 CA-CIV 828.
April 13, 1971. Rehearing Denied June 2, 1971.
Divorce proceeding. The Superior Court, Pima County, Cause No. 111725, Lloyd C. Helm, J., awarded divorce and custody of parties' children to wife, and husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Krucker, C.J., held that where children were in exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile Court, divorce court did not have jurisdiction to make order with regard to custody of children, though counsel stipulated that divorce court could determine custody and objection was not raised to divorce court's award of custody.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
R. Lamar Couser, Tucson, for appellant.
Legal Aid Society by Emojean K. Girard, Tucson, for appellee.
This appeal is from a divorce decree granting custody of the parties' children to the wife-appellee (defendant-counter-claimant below), who was also awarded a divorce. The appellant-husband was the plaintiff below. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as husband and wife.
The question raised by this appeal is the jurisdiction of the divorce court to award custody of children who were under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court at the time of the divorce court's decree.
The facts here are that on February 4, 1969, the husband filed a complaint for divorce, to which the wife answered and counterclaimed. It appears by order of the juvenile court dated April 21, 1969, that sometime prior to that date the children in question came under the "exclusive jurisdiction" of that court. This order, "on stipulation of counsel," states:
"* * * that Judge Lee Garrett may hear and decide all matters involved herein, including the custody of the children, and may make any and all orders concerning the custody of the children, it being the intention of Juvenile Court to relinquish the right to hear all these matters and permit Judge Garrett to hear the same."
Judge Garrett heard a show cause proceeding on June 9, 1969, and his order pendente lite on July 1, 1969, was that custody remain with the juvenile court. The divorce decree filed September 16, 1969, awarded custody to the wife, subject to reasonable visitation rights in the husband.
It is clear to us that the divorce court did not have the jurisdiction to make an order with regard to the custody of the children who were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the juvenile court. McClendon v. Superior Court, 6 Ariz. App. 497, 433 P.2d 989 (1967). The stipulation of counsel as to the order above was ineffective as jurisdiction cannot be waived or vested by such a procedure. Nor is the failure of the husband's counsel to object to the divorce court's award of custody fatal to this appeal in that, again, jurisdictional defects cannot be waived.
Since the jurisdiction of the juvenile court had not terminated at the time the subject divorce decree was entered, the custody award was contrary to our holding in McClendon, supra. We therefore must reverse the judgment as to the custody determination. However, we do not anticipate that this problem will arise in the future since the legislative mandate of A.R.S. § 8-202, subsec. C, as amended, 1970, will control:
Although not part of the record on appeal, and therefore inappropriate for appellate consideration, an exhibit appended to the wife's brief indicates that an order of the juvenile court, dated March 20, 1970, terminated juvenile court jurisdiction, with custody of the children given to the mother.
"The orders of the juvenile court under the authority of this chapter shall, to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith, take precedence over any order of any other court of this state excepting the court of appeals and the supreme court."
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
HATHAWAY, J., and LAWRENCE W. GALLIGAN, Superior Court Judge. concur.
Note: Judge LAWRENCE HOWARD having requested that he be relieved from consideration of this matter, Judge LAWRENCE W. GALLIGAN was called to sit in his stead and participate in the determination of this decision.