Case Update (29 Oct 2025): Vargas v. Nolla; Wisconsin correctly ceded custody jurisdiction to Mexican court
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision, analyzed whether or not its cession of custody jurisdiction to Mexico was wrong. It concluded it was not, and affirmed, leaving the case squarely within the jurisdiction of the Mexican courts. The legal analysis hits on some of the main issues in the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) - the prioritized bases for jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination and whether a foreign court’s jurisdiction was assumed in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA’s principles. Perhaps most interesting here is the inner workings of direct judicial communication. Using certain provisions in the UCCJEA, the parties in this case asked the Wisconsin court to stay proceedings so that the Wisconsin and Mexican judges could communicate directly about the jurisdictional issue. The Wisconsin court contacted the Mexican court wanting a Zoom meeting, and suggesting a date for that meeting. While the Wisconsin court did not receive a response from its Mexican counterpart, the judge in Mexico logged into Zoom at the suggested date and time, and the judges held a conference. There was a translator and a court reporter, and the courts agreed that the issue that needed resolution was which court would exercise jurisdiction. They discussed each case, their filing deadlines, service on the parties, and basic details. During the Zoom, the Mexican court apparently stated it believed it had jurisdiction. Note: the child at issue here was born in Wisconsin, lived in Wisconsin for several years, visited with their parents in Mexico (when they spent substantial time there for work), and then lived in Mexico from mid-April 2021 until August 14, 2021, at which time the child’s mother brought the child back to Wisconsin, apparently without the father’s consent or knowledge. The Mexican custody/divorce case was filed on September 8, 2021 by the father, with the mother being served on January 29, 2022. The mother filed a custody/legal separation case in Wisconsin on October 15, 2021.
The judges held a second conference, and discussed issues related to jurisdiction, the parties’ conflicting accounts of residency, and the appointment of a guardian ad litem or social worker to make a recommendation as to the child’s best interests. The Wisconsin court kept the parties informed of its communications with the Mexican court and permitted the parties to submit factual and legal arguments to both courts in English and Spanish. Ultimately, after all of this, the Mexican court affirmed it would keep jurisdiction, and the Wisconsin court determined it was required to dismiss the Wisconsin action and cede jurisdiction to Mexico. On appeal, aside from the other arguments related to jurisdiction, the mother argued that the courts did not provide adequate opportunity for the parties to share input, and that the courts’ communications were “off the record.” The Court of Appeals, citing to its UCCJEA, said that “if the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they shall be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.” The Court of Appeals then noted that both parties had submitted affidavits with factual assertions and legal briefs in English and Spanish. This sufficed. The trial court’s jurisdiction determination was affirmed.
