Case Update (21 April 2026): In re RAA; Child’s Home State on Date of Filing was Netherlands, not Montana
This question revolves around jurisdiction in Montana to order a parenting plan over a minor child, born in 2015. In these cases, timelines are critical. This case’s timeline is as follows:
In 2020, the parties and child moved from Colorado to Montana. From June 2022 until May 2023, the child resided and attended public school in the Netherlands. In May 2023, the child and Mother returned to Montana to reconcile the parties’ marriage. On August 11, 2023, the Mother and child left, without the knowledge or consent of the Father, and returned to the Netherlands. On February 13, 2024, the Mother filed a divorce and custody petition in a Dutch court. On January 17, 2025, the Father filed a petition to return the child to the USA in a Dutch Court, using the Hague Abduction Convention. His petition was denied, with a conclusion that it was filed more than one year from the wrongful removal, and the child was now settled in the Netherlands (but with a finding that the child’s removal from the U.S. was wrongful, meaning the Dutch court concluded that the U.S. was the child’s “habitual residence”). The Father’s appeal in the Dutch courts was dismissed. In September 2025, the Father sought an emergency order for temporary custody, and also filed a petition for a permanent parenting plan, in Montana. In November 2025, the Dutch court held a hearing on the Mother’s custody filing. The translated copy of the Dutch order filed in Montana by both parents seemingly concluded that the Dutch court was retaining jurisdiction to resolve custody. On March 24, 2026, the Mother filed a notice to register a foreign (Dutch) judgment. That judgment granted the Mother “full legal custody” and granted the Father parenting time during the child’s Dutch school holidays, with the possibility of an additional two weeks of special leave from school.
In citing the Montana enactment of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court concluded that the Father’s delay in filing his custody suit in Montana to well beyond six months after the child’s move to the Netherlands, and the ongoing custody case in the Netherlands, which was filed under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA’s definition of “home state,” meant that Montana was not the child’s home state at the time of the petition filed in Montana. The UCCJEA has provisions (see section 105) that provide for the recognition of foreign child custody orders made in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the dismissal of the Father’s custody suit in Montana.
One quick note - lawyers routinely confuse an internationally mobile child’s “habitual residence” as being the legal standard for pinning down jurisdiction for a child custody lawsuit. It is not in the United States. The Uniform Law Commission put forth a excellent memo clarifying the U.S. peculiarities that foreign lawyers must be familiar with, and often misunderstand.
