IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
GAMAS-CASTELLANOS, Erick ) Clark Circuit Court Cause No.
David, ) 10C01-0205-DR-120
)
appellant, ) Court of Appeals Cause No.
) 10A01-0303-CV-104
v. )
) Supreme Court Cause No.
GAMAS, Catherine Marie, ) 10S01-0401-CV-11
)
appellee. )
PUBLISHED ORDER
Erick David Gamas-Castellanos (“Father”) and Catherine Marie Gamas
(“Mother”) divorced in Texas. The Texas decree granted Mother permanent
physical custody of the parties’ two children and granted Father
visitation. Mother thereafter moved with the children to Indiana. Later,
Mother sent the younger child to stay with Father in the Netherlands.
Father subsequently moved to Louisiana with the younger child.
Mother objected to the child’s living in Louisiana with Father. She
registered the Texas dissolution decree in the Clark Circuit Court in
Indiana. Mother then traveled to Louisiana and brought the younger child
back to Indiana, based on the registered Texas decree which gave her
custody of both children.
On June 14, 2002, Father filed in Louisiana a motion that requested a
determination of the custody of the children. Mother appeared in the
Louisiana action and filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Louisiana
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Louisiana’s version of the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”), like Indiana’s, is similar to the
uniform act. On October 28, 2002, the Louisiana trial court entered an
order finding that under its UCCJA law, Louisiana was the home state of the
younger child and therefore had jurisdiction to decide custody issues
concerning that child. The court ordered the return of the younger child
to Father’s physical custody and placement of the permanent custody issue
on its docket. However, the Louisiana court found that under the UCCJA, it
lacked jurisdiction to decide custody issues regarding the older child.
An appeal ensued. In an unpublished disposition, the Louisiana Court
of Appeals affirmed, finding no error in the trial court’s conclusion that
Louisiana courts have jurisdiction over the custody of the younger child.
Gamas v. Gamas, Cause No. 2002-CW-2651 (La. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2003).
In the meantime, on July 9, 2002, Mother had filed a motion to modify
visitation in the Clark Circuit Court in Indiana. Father responded with
motions asserting, in part, that a Louisiana court had already ruled that
it had jurisdiction to decide custody of the younger child, had directed
return of the child to Father, and that Indiana courts were precluded from
asserting jurisdiction over the custody of that child.
In orders issued February 10 and February 14, 2003, the Clark Circuit
Court concluded that, contrary to the determination of the Louisiana
courts, Indiana was the home state of both children and that Indiana should
exercise jurisdiction over the custody dispute.
On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Gamas-Castellanos
v. Gamas, 794 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), vacated. We granted the
Father’s petition to transfer jurisdiction, thus vacating the opinion of
the Court of Appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rules 57, 58(A). We conducted
oral argument on February 18, 2004.
Because this appeal involves an issue of child custody, the Court has
elected to expedite the case by issuing this dispositive published order
rather than an opinion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 21(A). In sum, we
conclude that Louisiana exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity
with the UCCJA, and therefore under Indiana Code § 31-17-3-6, the Clark
Circuit Court should not have also exercised jurisdiction over custody of
the younger child. Further, even if Louisiana erred in determining which
state was the home state for purposes of deciding custody of the younger
child, because the issue was conclusively litigated in Louisiana with both
sides fully participating, the decision of the Louisiana court system is
entitled to full faith and credit in Indiana. See Lee v. DeShaney, 457
N.E.2d 604, 607-08 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the Clark Circuit Court is
reversed in part. The matter is remanded to the trial court with
directions to vacate its judgment to the extent it exercises home state
custody jurisdiction over the parties’ younger child, and to take any other
actions necessary and consistent with this order.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of
record; to the Clark Circuit Court; and to West Publishing for publication
in the advance sheets and bound volumes of our reported decisions.
Done at Indianapolis, Indiana this 20th day of February, 2004.
/s/ Randall T. Shepard
Chief Justice of Indiana
All Justices concur.