In re the Marriage of:

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-0032

In re the Marriage of:

Jennifer Ruth Wadsworth, petitioner,
Respondent,

vs.

Barry James Wadsworth, Jr.,
Appellant.

Filed October 21, 2019
Reversed and remanded
Rodenberg, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-FA-14-2508

Kay Nord Hunt, Lommen Abdo, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Brian L. Sobol, McGrann Shea Carnival Straughn & Lamb, Chartere d, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Jennifer R. Wadsworth, Shaker Heights, Ohio (pro se respondent)

Considered and decided by Roden berg, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
RODENBERG, Judge
Appellant-father Barry Wadsworth challenges the district court ’s order determining
that Minnesota no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the original Minnesota

2
child custody decree establishing joint legal and physical cust ody of the parties’ minor
children. Because Minnesota con tinues to have exclusive, conti nuing jurisdiction based
on father’s current residence in Minnesota and his status as a joint legal and physical
custodian of the minor children, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
Father and respondent-mother Jenni fer Wadsworth were married in 1998. They
moved to Minnesota in 2009. Two children were born during the marriage, and both
remain minors. The marriage was dissolved in Hennepin County D istrict Court by
Stipulated Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment an d Decree (custody
decree) on October 28, 2014. The custody decree granted the pa rties joint legal and
physical custody of the children, and recited that Minnesota ha d jurisdiction under the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
Father moved to Ohio in 2016 to take a new job. Mother also mo ved to Ohio with
the children as part of a cooperative arrangement for father and mother to continue raising
the children as joint custodians. On January 2, 2018, father f iled a petition in Ohio to
register the Minnesota custody decree. In March of 2018, while father’s petition to register
the decree was pending, father returned to Minnesota; mother re mained in Ohio with the
children. The Ohio court confirmed registration of the custody decree on April 12, 2018.
On April 25, 2018, mother filed a motion in Ohio asking that the Ohio court modify
the custody decree. On August 3, 2018, father filed his own motion in Minnesota seeking
to modify the custody decree. Mother filed a responsive motion in the Minnesota case,

3
arguing that Minnesota lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and arguing in the alternative that
Minnesota is an inconvenient forum.
The Minnesota district court issued its order on father’s motio n on November 9,
2018. It determined that Minnesota no longer has exclusive, co ntinuing jurisdiction and
that mother’s pending motion in Ohio precluded father’s later-f iled motion in Minnesota.
Father’s motion was dismissed. The district court did not rule on mother’s inconvenient-
forum argument.
This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
Minnesota and Ohio have both adopted versions of the UCCJEA. M inn. Stat.
§§ 518D.101-.317 (2018); Ohio Rev. Code. §§ 3127.01-.53 (2018). T h e U C C J E A
provides that the state that issu es a child custody decree gene rally retains exclusive,
continuing jurisdiction over the decree as long as the children or a parent resides in that
state. Schroeder v. Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Minn. App. 2003).
Minnesota’s statute provides that the state issuing a child custody determination has
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that determination until either:
(1) a court of this state determines that the child, the
child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not have
a significant connection with t his state and that substantial
evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the
child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
(2) a court of this state or a court of another state
determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person
acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.

4
Minn. Stat. § 518D.202(a)(1)-(2). Accordingly, Minnesota retai ns exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction over a custody decr ee issued in Minnesota until a court finds at least one of
two conditions to exist: (1) the children, mother, and father no longer have a significant
connection with Minnesota and there is no substantial evidence concerning the children’s
care, protection, and personal relationships in Minnesota; or (2) the children, mother, and
father no longer reside in Minnesota. See id.
We review a district court’s application of the UCCJEA de novo and its underlying
findings of fact for clear error. Cook v. Arimitsu, 907 N.W.2d 233, 238 (Minn. App. 2018)
(citation and quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2018). Where there are no
disputed facts, “the application of the law to [those] facts is a question of law and fully
reviewable by appellate courts.” Christianson v. Henke , 831 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Minn.
2013) (quotation omitted).
The parties agree that father re turned to Minnesota in March of 2018 and continues
to reside here. Father’s residence in Minnesota is clearly a s ignificant connection with
Minnesota. Moreover, the children likewise have significant connections with Minnesota
because one of their joint custodi ans resides here. Because fa ther and the children have
significant connections to Minnesota, section 518D.202(a)(1) has no application here. See
Minn. Stat. § 518D.202(a)(1).
Section 518D.202(a)(2) is similarly straightforward. Again, t he parties agree that
f a t h e r c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s i n M i n n e s o t a . B e c a u s e h e i s o n e o f t he children’s parents and
“presently reside[s] in” Minnesota, section 518D.202(a)(2) does not apply. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518D.202(a)(2).

5
The district court found father’s registration of the custody d ecree in Ohio
significant, stating that “Father cannot now avoid his own acti on of filing the [petition to
register the custody decree in Ohio] by moving to Minnesota very shortly thereafter.” But
the registration of a custody d etermination is irrelevant to ex clusive, continuing
jurisdiction. Section 518D.202 provides the only conditions wh ere an issuing state loses
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over a child custody determi nation. See Minn. Stat.
§ 518D.201-.210. Registration of a custody decree in another s tate is not one of those
conditions. See id.
The district court also discussed convenience factors in determining that Minnesota
no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. As with registration of the custody decree,
convenience factors are irrelevant to an issuing state’s exclus ive, continuing jurisdiction.
See id. Those factors are relevant, if at all, only in an inconvenien t-forum analysis under
section 518D.207—which the district court did not do.
Under the plain language of Minnes ota’s version of the UCCJEA, Minnesota has
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the original Minnesota custody decree. Because the
district court did not address mother’s alternative argument th a t M i n n e s o t a i s a n
inconvenient forum in which to resolve the parties’ post-decree motions, that issue may be
revisited on remand. “A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the
record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before
it.” Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (quotation omitted).
Based on the undisputed fact that father resides in Minnesota and is a joint custodian
of the children, giving the children a significant connection here, neither condition set forth

6
in section 518D.202 is met. Minnesota retains exclusive, conti nuing jurisdiction over the
custody decree. See Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d at 911 (holding that the issuing state retained
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because it was undisputed th at the father was still a
resident of the issuing state). We reverse the district court’ s order to the contrary and
remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.