Petitioner Valerie K. (hereinafter "the mother") and Respondent Thomas K. (hereinafter "the father") are the parents of the subject child (date of birth: XX/XX/21). This is a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act Article 6. This action commenced with the mother's filing of a custody petition on December 11, 2023.

Shortly thereafter, on December 13, 2023, the mother was served with the father's petition for dissolution of marriage that he had filed with the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, on December 5, 2023. On December 14, 2023, the father received a copy of the mother's New York petition via email. On December 20, 2023, counsel for the mother ^[FN1] filed an amended petition but failed to alert this Court to the California action. On January 8, 2024, counsel for the father filed a motion to dismiss the mother's amended petition, informing this Court for the first [*2]time about the California action ^[FN2] . On January 16, 2024, counsel for the mother filed an attorney affirmation in opposition to the father's motion. On January 19, 2024, counsel for the father filed a reply memorandum in support of his motion.

On January 22, 2024, both parties appeared with counsel via Microsoft Teams, and the Attorney for the Child appeared on behalf of the child, for an initial appearance before the New York court. This Court took under-oath testimony from the parties. On February 9, 2024, both parties submitted additional filings, which were shared (along with all other New York filings) with the California court. On February 15, 2024, a preliminary video conference was held between Hon. Scott A. Miller and Hon. Leonard Trinh of the California court. California counsel for both parents were present. After the conclusion of the preliminary UCCJEA judges' conference, both judges ultimately concluded that each court must hold a full evidentiary hearing in order to determine proper jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

On March 21, 2024, and April 11, 2024, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction. The mother appeared in person with counsel, Thomas Shannan, Esq. The father appeared from California via Microsoft Teams. Counsel for the father, Tyler Eckert, Esq., appeared in person on the first date and via Microsoft Teams on the second date. The Attorney for the Child, Olivia Molineux, Esq., of Citizens Concerned for Children, Inc., appeared in person. The Court heard testimony from the father's mother, the father's cousin, and the parties. The Court received numerous exhibits into evidence. Counsel for the mother and counsel for the father submitted post-hearing memoranda on May 13, 2024. The Attorney for the Child submitted a memorandum on May 15, 2024.

The Court found the mother to be completely credible. In fact, she was scrupulously honest in pointing out and correcting her prior attorney's factual inaccuracies and hyperbole. It is clear to this Court that the mother did not concoct an elaborate scheme to lure the father out here to New York so that she could end the marriage — and establish UCCJEA jurisdiction. Indeed, if she had such a plan, she surely would have simply waited an additional ten days to file her custody petition in order to establish New York as the child's "home state" pursuant to the UCCJEA.

By contrast, the Court found the father to be devoid of credibility. He brazenly claimed to this Court over and over again that his move to New York was always intended to be temporary despite all evidence — including his own legal contracts and text messages - establishing the contrary. He even offered his own mother and cousin to make the same absurd claims to this Court under oath. Notably, the father has a prior criminal conviction for use of interstate facilities in pursuing the commission of a murder-for-hire for which he served a sentence of 68 months in federal prison. The Court finds both this conviction — and his willful failure to disclose the conviction on his job application to his employer (Petitioner's Exhibit 28) — to be relevant to his credibility, which the Court found to be severely lacking.

The father was born and raised in San Diego, California, and continues to have relatives in the area including his mother and cousin. The mother was born in upstate New York and was raised in Tompkins County. She continues to have relatives in the area including her mother, sister, and brother.

The parties met in 2017 in the State of Minnesota where they were both working at the time. In late 2019, the father earned a promotion, and the parties moved to an apartment in the State of California. They married in July of 2020, travelling briefly to New York for the wedding festivities before returning home to California. In November of 2020, the parties purchased a home in Warner Springs, California, where they resided until they left California in June of 2023. Their only child was born in California on XX/XX/21.

Throughout the child's life, the mother has been the primary caregiver. For the entire [*3](almost) two years that the family-of-three lived in California, the mother was a stay-at-home mom, providing near-constant care for the child and meeting all of his needs. The mother belonged to a social group of other mothers with young children. The mother also sporadically used a daycare through the father's work, but this was and could only be used for up to a maximum of 15 or 20 days per year. (Respondent's Exhibit G). The father was employed with a staffing company. He obtained permission from his employer to work remotely upon the family's move to New York in June of 2023.

Soon after the child was born, the parties began to experience marital difficulties. Three days after the child was born, the father allowed a friend to stay at the parties' home for a week. Despite the fact that the mother was recovering from childbirth and breastfeeding the child, the father continued to allow his friend to remain. The two men consumed alcohol frequently through the week, while the mother was left alone to care for the newborn child.

At an unspecified time after the child's birth, the mother found a rolled up $100 bill with white residue inside the garage of their home. The father denied ownership. The mother was upset that either the father or someone connected to the father was engaging in illegal activity in their home where their small child resided.

In October or November of 2022, the parties had planned to take their Tesla with attached trailer into town to pick up some furniture they had purchased on Facebook marketplace. The mother observed that the father had been drinking alcohol and, as a result, decided to take the child and leave the father home for the errand. The father became angry and accused her of taking his vehicle without permission. He used his Tesla phone application to remotely turn up the heat and music inside of the vehicle while the mother was driving with the child in tow. In fact, the father completely disconnected the mother's phone from the car leaving her unable to restart the car.

On March 23, 2023, the mother left the child with the father and went into town to run errands. The mother became upset when she heard the father's voice over the phone and realized the father had been drinking alcohol. The parties began yelling at one another, and the parties' neighbor called the police. The mother, already in an emotional state because her grandfather was dying, threatened to take the car and drive herself and the child across the country to be with her family. After speaking with police officers who advised against removing the child from the state without the father's permission, the mother calmed down and decided to go to the father's parents' home, 90 minutes away, for the night. The father physically blocked the mother from leaving, and she spat in his face.

In the days following this incident, the mother considered all options including divorce and coparenting in New York and was completely transparent with the father about her intentions. (Respondent's Exhibit H). On March 28, 2023, the mother spoke to a California attorney by phone. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Much was made of this phone call by opposing counsel, however this Court finds that the mother inquired about separation and support issues and did not consult the attorney for information on how to lure the father to New York under false pretenses.^[FN3] Nonetheless, the mother decided to continue to work on the marriage. She testified that the above events made the couple realize that they needed to make a change; specifically, they realized they needed more support from family and friends in order to make their marriage work. After considering a move to both Florida and New York, the parties ultimately decided to relocate to New York where they would have year-round support from the mother's relatives.

The maternal grandmother flew one-way from New York to California, and then she [*4]drove cross-country with her daughter in one of the parties' vehicles towing a trailer containing important belongings.^[FN4] The mother and maternal grandmother arrived in Tompkins County, New York, on June 19, 2023. The father and child both flew one-way from California to New York, leaving California on June 20, 2023, and arriving in New York on June 21, 2023. Within several days of arriving, the parties looked at a home located in Trumansburg, New York (Tompkins County), which was located less than one mile from the maternal grandmother's home. On June 30, 2023, they signed a purchase agreement for the home, and on July 5, 2023, they hired counsel to represent them in the purchase. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). On September 29, 2023, they closed on the home and moved into it. From the parties' arrival in New York until the closing on their new home, the parties resided in the mother's grandfather's home which had been inherited by the mother and her siblings.

Throughout the above, the parties indicated their mutual intent to permanently relocate their family to New York. In a text conversation with her friend on June 29, 2023, the mother wrote, "We are here for good but will be back to San Diego to visit Thomas's family occasionally!" (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). The father applied for pre-approval for a home loan to purchase a home in "Ithaca, New York" which he represented would be used as the family's "primary residence." (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On June 11, 2023 - even before moving to New York - the parties signed a contract to list their California home for sale. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The home was listed for sale on June 18, 2023. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). In a text conversation with their California real estate agent on July 1, 2023, the father replied, "Sweet!" when the agent informed the parties that he would be showing their home the following day. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). In addition, the parties shared that their offer had been accepted on the Trumansburg home, and the father sent the agent a link to the Zillow listing, discussing improvements he intended to make to the home. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). The parties accepted an offer on their California home on or about July 13, 2023, however the offer was contingent upon the sale of the buyers' home, which ultimately fell through. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8). The parties re-listed their California home for sale on August 1, 2023, lowered the asking price on August 23, 2023, and, after failing to obtain any other serious offers and being unable to afford both homes, ultimately re-listed the home for rent on September 26, 2023. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8).

As the parties continued to reside in New York through the late summer and fall of 2023, their conduct continued to evince a mutual intent to make New York their forever home. The mother established a new pediatrician for the child in New York and had his records transferred from California. The mother established a dentist for the child in New York. In August, the mother obtained her New York driver's license. The mother obtained employment at a dermatologist's office four days per week. The parties signed a year-long contract to enroll the child in daycare five days per week in New York. (Petitioner's Exhibits 13A, 13B, and 14). On August 31, 2024, they purchased a year-long membership to the Sciencenter in Ithaca. (Petitioner's Exhibit 24). On October 5, 2023, the father sent the mother a text message stating, "There's a school right next to us," along with a link to the school's webpage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). The parties' relatives further reflected the couple's intent to remain in New York indefinitely. On September 24, 2023, the paternal grandmother commented on the mother's Facebook post about the family's trip to an apple orchard stating, "Next visit, I'll have to stay during the weekend for trips to apple farms!" (Petitioner's Exhibit 11).

However, despite their fresh start in New York, the parties continued to experience difficulties in their marriage which ultimately led to its demise. On the evening of July 23, 2023, the mother observed the father drinking alcoholic beverages "one after another." His abuse of alcohol had been an ongoing concern for the mother throughout the marriage. She suggested that [*5]he "maybe slow down a little" before putting the child to bed and going to sleep herself. She awoke at around 10:00 p.m. to banging on the house ^[FN5] and lights shining through the windows. The mother called her mother who informed her that the father had been in an accident and had been flown to a trauma center. The mother spoke with the police who were at her door and learned that the father had been found in a ditch after crashing his one-wheel hover board on a public highway. The father spent two to three days in Upstate Medical Trauma Unit, and the mother came to visit him there, leaving the child in her mother's care. The father sustained broken facial bones, a broken collar bone, an elbow injury, and three brain bleeds. The doctor informed the mother that the father's blood alcohol content on the evening of the crash had been "very high."

Despite this incident, the mother still wasn't ready to give up on the marriage. However, more problems ensued. On the evening of October 27, 2023, the father began nagging the mother about a male having been present at a get-together with the mother and her friends. This was not the first time the father had accused the mother of cheating on him. He would not let her go to sleep. She left the bedroom and went into the child's room. The father rushed in, grabbed the mother's arm, and pulled her out of the child's room. They got into a "big fight" during which the father took the mother's phone. He told her that because he had purchased the phone for her several years ago, it was his property and not hers. He told her that he had thrown her phone in the fire, that she would not be getting it back, and that he was "protecting" her. The mother was in fear because she believed that he had in fact thrown her phone into the fire, and she now had no way of contacting anyone. The mother continued to try to get away from the father by going to the child's room, and the father continued to pursue her and tell her she needed to return to bed. When the mother attempted to leave the home on foot, the father ran after her. When the mother finally got her phone back, she texted her mother for help. The maternal grandmother drove over and picked up the mother and child.

This incident was the last straw. For the next several weeks, the mother and child remained at the maternal grandmother's home while the father resided in the Trumansburg home. The couple alternated weekends with the child. On November 22, 2023, the father decided to return to California. He departed with his belongings by car to California. Along the way, he sent the mother a text message telling the mother he would turn around if she changed her mind about ending the marriage. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27). Of significance, the father could have chosen to remain nearby to his son in New York and coparent with the mother despite the ending of the marriage. His choice to return to California was just that — his choice. His claim that his employer was, at that very same time, requiring him to return to California was incredible, unsubstantiated, and in fact contradicted by his own text message (Petitioner's Exhibit 27).

In November or December 2023, the father informed the mother he would not continue to make the mortgage payments on the Trumansburg home, forcing the mother to move herself and the child out of the home and rent it out. The mother and the child began splitting their time between the maternal grandmother's home and an apartment in a neighboring county owned by the maternal grandmother.

The child is thriving at his daycare in New York, having made many important strides educationally and socially since beginning there. (Petitioner's Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 18). He attends daycare five days per week in New York in contrast to his relatively sporadic participation in both the mothers' group and daycare in California. Therefore, the child's educational and social contacts with his young friends in New York are stronger and more significant than the ones he had in California.

The child also enjoys a close relationship with the maternal grandmother and her partner, maternal aunt and her partner, and maternal uncle, who all reside nearby in New York. [*6](Petitioner's Exhibits 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23). While he also enjoyed a close relationship with his paternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins in California (Respondent's Exhibits Q through BBB), it is significant that all of his relatives in California lived 60 to 90 minutes from the family's home in Warner Springs. As a result, the child did not see his father's relatives as frequently as he sees his mother's relatives since moving to New York. Therefore, the child's familial contacts are stronger in New York than the ones he had in California.

Finally, the child has another extremely significant contact in New York — his own Attorney for Child — to advocate for him. He does not have an Attorney for Child (or other equivalent) in California as no such advocate is provided for under California law.

The Court finds that the mother did not lure the father to New York under false pretenses. Both parties desired to work on their marriage, and they earnestly believed that moving to New York would give them a "reset," provide them some much-need support, and hopefully allow them to overcome their marital problems. When they left California to move to New York, they both intended to reside together with their son in New York indefinitely. There was no planned return date to California. Simply because the parties were unable to overcome their problems in New York — and their union dissolved five months after their move - does not mean that the mother masterminded the demise of the marriage or engaged in any gamesmanship to forum shop New York for the upcoming custody battle; indeed, the Court does not find any evidence to that effect. Instead, the Court finds that the father's own behavior — his continued poor judgment, substance abuse, and jealousy issues - led to the end of the marriage despite the mother's best efforts to salvage it.

New York and California have both adopted the UCCJEA. New York Domestic Relations Law §75 et seq. and California Family Code §3400 et seq. The UCCJEA operates like a flowchart, where, if jurisdiction is proper under a prescribed situation, the analysis need not proceed to the subsequent situations. The analysis typically begins with determining the child's "home state," which is defined, as relevant here, as "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding" (Domestic Relations Law § 75—a [7]). The first situation under which a state's courts have jurisdiction is if that state is the child's home state on the date of commencement, or was the home state within the prior six months and "the child is absent from th[e] state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in th[e] state" (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][a]).

A review of the Appellate Division case law in New York on the issue of "temporary absence" as it relates to establishing the six (6) month requirement for "home state" jurisdiction reveals a focus on whether or not the parent seeking to establish "home state" jurisdiction in New York engaged in conduct evidencing an intent to relinquish or change residency. Felty v. Felty, 66 AD3d 64 (2nd Dept. 2009). In Felty, the Court articulated the New York rule that the intent of the parents as evidenced by their conduct must be analyzed in determining what state was intended to either remain or become a child's permanent residence. Id. at 70.

It is evident from this Court's findings of fact that the conduct of both parents demonstrated an unequivocal intent that New York was to become the new and permanent residence of their son. The mother was completely honest about her desire to relocate from California, and both parents followed through with this plan when the family arrived in Tompkins County, New York with most of their possessions in late June 2023. The mother and father's joint purchase of a new primary residence in Tompkins County demonstrated the unambiguous intent of the parents that New York was intended to be the child's state of residence. The mother's testimony that their new home was intended to be the family's "forever home" was credible and accepted by the Court. The Court rejects the father's hearing testimony that he only confirmed that the Trumansburg home would be the family's "primary residence" in his mortgage loan documents to obtain a more favorable interest rate. Making intentionally false [*7]statements on federal banking documents in order to secure a more favorable interest rate could constitute felony Federal Occupancy Fraud. The father certainly does not need another criminal conviction on his record. See, 18 U.S.C. §1014.

The evidence was clear and convincing that the mother and father left California in late June 2023 with the intent to relinquish California as the child's state of residence and with the intent to establish New York State as the child's new residence. All of the conduct of both parents immediately subsequent to their departure from California and arrival and habitation in New York is entirely consistent with this Court's finding that both the mother and the father intended New York State to become the child's permanent residence.

Furthermore, the five-month period the father resided in New York with the mother and child was not a temporary absence. Nor does the Court find that the mother engaged in any unjustifiable conduct that would warrant a finding that the child's time in New York represents a temporary absence from California. Domestic Relations Law § 76—g (1) states, "if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this article because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction." The unjustifiable conduct provision of the UCCJEA is designed to deter abducting or secretly removing a child across state lines in order to secure jurisdiction. Generally, courts apply the "unjustifiable conduct" provision where a child has been removed contrary to an existing custody order. The "few courts determining what constitutes "unjustifiable conduct" have all considered factual scenarios involving whether a child had been brought into a state illegally." Grace G. v Beeno G., 12 Misc 3d 1184 (New York County, 2006). Furthermore, the Comment to UCCJEA §208 (the equivalent to New York's Domestic Relations Law § 76—g) makes clear:

There are still a number of cases where parents, or their surrogates, act in a reprehensible manner, such as removing, secreting, retaining, or restraining the child. This section ensures that abducting parents will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct. If the conduct which creates the jurisdiction is unjustified, courts must decline to exercise jurisdiction that is inappropriately invoked by one of the parties." UCCJEA § 208, 9 ULA cmt at 684—85 (1999). [emphasis added]

The case of Sanjuan v. Sanjuan, 68 AD3d 1093 (2nd Dept. 2009), highlights just how high the bar is set in order to find UCCJEA qualifying "unjustifiable conduct" by a parent. In Sanjuan, the father secretly removed the child from New York to the Philippines, and the mother did not know the whereabouts of the child for several days. However, once the mother learned of her child's location, she then visited the child in the Philippines on several occasions. In affirming the trial court's conclusion that the Philippines had become the child's home state notwithstanding the father's duplicitous conduct in removing the child from New York without the mother's knowledge, the Appellate Division Second Department concluded:

By taking the child to the Philippines, the father did not engage in "unjustifiable conduct" such that the Philippines should have declined jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 76—g[1] ). There was no custody order that prevented the father from taking the child to the Philippines. While the mother initially indicated to the Supreme Court that she had no knowledge of their whereabouts, she later stated that several days after the father left with the child, she learned that they were in the Philippines, and the mother's family visited with the child there on several occasions. Since the mother knew of the child's whereabouts, and there was no existing custody order in place preventing the father from taking the child to the Philippines, the father's conduct was not unjustifiable *** Even if the father's conduct had been unjustifiable, the mother acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Philippines. Id. at 1094-1095. (emphasis added)

In Felty, supra., the father, a Kentucky resident, also claimed that the mother's move with [*8]the children to New York was wrongful and constituted unjustifiable conduct because he alleged, (as the father does here) that she moved "under false pretenses" in order to forum shop. The Felty court found that lying, or false pretenses, would not constitute wrongful or unjustifiable conduct as contemplated under the UCCJEA, particularly where the Felty mother's concededly false statement of intent was made to escape an allegedly abusive relationship which included threats of domestic violence. Id. at 71-72.

This Family Court finds that the mother was entirely credible and the father failed to provide any evidence that she engaged in any unjustifiable or wrongful conduct as defined under the UCCJEA. Ironically, the only "false pretenses" convincingly established before this Court was through the father's own testimony that it was he who harbored a secret plan to return to California once the mother realized the error of her decision to relocate the family to New York.

Consequently, the child had no UCCJEA "home state" at the time the mother and father commenced their respective custody actions in New York and California. The Court summarily dismisses the father's argument that his sudden return to California in late November 2023 could somehow resurrect the child's California residence which the mother and father clearly relinquished when they intentionally moved to New York in June 2023, eventually closing on and moving into their new primary residence in New York. Under no rational view of the facts did the father "continue" to live in California. "The primary consideration of courts in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature" and "the unambiguous language of the statute is alone determinative." Riley v. Cnty. of Broome, 95 NY2d 455, 463 (2000). This Court agrees with the mother's counsel, and sound logic, that the word "continues" is unambiguous and means "to maintain without interruption a condition, course, or action." Meriam-Webster. See also, UCCJEA commentaries explaining that "continues" refers to "remains in the home state" and the parent who is "left behind." Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Comment, UCCJEA §201 (1997). See, MG v. CM, 55 Misc 3d 1223 (Kings Cty. 2017) (where mother did not continuously remain behind in the original NY home state for six months, the mother could not invoke alternative home state jurisdiction). See also, Schneer, v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1288 (2015) (alternate "home state" UCCJEA jurisdiction exists only where a "parent [ ] remained" behind and where the "parent continues to live in the home state.")

The father's counsel's brief exists in an Orwellian world where words do not have their true meaning but instead mean the very opposite. The father's counsel argues that "continues" does not mean what it means. In the father's view, "continues" means interrupted or discontinuous. The father's counsel argues that the court should abandon rationality. This stratagem is consistent with the father's wildly disingenuous under oath testimony which demanded that this Court suspend all disbelief.

This Court, having now determined that the child has no "home state" (in agreement with the California Family Court), the UCCJEA flowchart analysis must continue to the "significant connection" test. The Court must determine whether "(i) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships"(Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][b]). "The 'significant connection' test is primarily concerned with the connections of the child, not with the parent." M.G. v. C.M., 55 Misc 3d 1223(A) (NY Sup. Ct. 2017).

Unquestionably, the child presently has a "significant connection" to New York. The parents expressly agreed (notwithstanding the father's secretly harbored intent) in June 2023 that the entire family would move to New York. They did so. The child has now resided in New York continuously for nearly 11 months. His daycare, medical providers, friends, maternal grandmother and relatives, and primary residence are here in Trumansburg, New York. The child has been in full-time daycare in New York for almost eight months, while he never attended full- [*9]time daycare in California. All of his most recent pediatric appointments have taken place in New York. He has a dentist in New York while he never had one in California.

One of the main reasons the family moved to New York was in order for the mother, who has always been the child's primary caregiver, to have the assistance of her mother. Consequently, the home the parents purchased is walking distance from the grandmother's home. The grandmother has and continues to provide near daily support for the mother and child. The child sees his other maternal relatives on a near-daily basis as well. Conversely, while the father's family certainly loves the child, they were never nearby as they resided nearly 90 minutes from the child in California. He only saw those relatives one or two times per month. As a result, his familial connections are more significant in New York.

Further, the child "has an attorney appointed in New York to represent [him] who is familiar with the proceedings, and the continuity of that representation would be preserved by retention of jurisdiction in New York." Helmeyer v. Setzer, 173 AD3d 740, 744 (2nd Dept 2019).

The father's counsel states, "California has been accruing 'optimum evidence' for addressing the issue of custody and best interests of [the child]," but fails to specify what this evidence is and how it relates to his care, protection, training, and personal relationships. Indeed, the child has not resided in California for the past 11 months. Almost all of the relevant and current evidence concerning his care, protection, training, and personal relationships is available here in New York including but not limited to: daycare records, recent pediatrician and dentist records, the 1034 investigation conducted by the Tompkins County Department of Social Services, and the relevant records from Upstate Medical Hospital relating to the father's one- wheel crash. (The father's New York medical records and testimony from medical providers at Upstate Medical will be crucial during the "best interests" analysis with respect to the issue of whether the father was in fact intoxicated while operating his vehicle.) Additionally, any evidence available in California is easily accessible, and the New York Court has and will continue to permit witnesses to appear virtually via Microsoft Teams as needed. Indeed, " any testimony by other witnesses located [out of state], could be presented by 'telephone, audiovisual means, or other electronic means' [internal citations omitted]." Id.

Under, D.R.L. § 76-e, the next prong of analysis, i.e., "inconvenient forum," this Court must examine whether:

1. A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this article to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the child or the child's attorney, or upon the court's own motion, or request of another court.

2. Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or sibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

(b) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;

(c) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;

(d) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(e) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(f) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(g) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(h) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

The Court found the mother credible that the father has subjected her to domestic violence both in California and New York. Furthermore, the Court finds that the father financially abandoned the mother and their son when he returned to California in November 2023 and willfully failed to provide the mother and child with sufficient financial means to continue to reside in the family's newly purchased primary residence. New York appears best situated to protect the mother and child.

The child has now resided in Tompkins County, New York for nearly 11 continuous months with his mother and his grandmother nearby. Had the mother merely waited ten days in which to file her New York custody petition, New York would be the child's "home state" under the UCCJEA.

California to New York; approximately 2500 miles.

The father is in a far better financial position than the mother. The father makes at least $123,000 annually. The mother makes approximately $35,000 annually. The father has arguably abandoned the child as his own testimony established that he has provided negligible support for his child since returning to California in November of 2023.^[FN6] As a result, the burden of supporting the child has fallen squarely on the mother. This, coupled with the fact that California does not provide free attorneys to indigent parents in child custody proceedings, will place the mother at a significant disadvantage should this matter be heard in California.

Not applicable. The parents had no agreement concerning jurisdiction.

The child, the child's mother, the child's grandmother, and the child's educational and medical and dental providers are all located in New York. Additionally, New York provides for an Attorney for the Child. The father and the father's witnesses, while located in California, have been successfully accommodated via Microsoft Teams virtual testimony.

Both California and New York Courts appear equally capable of expeditiously deciding this custody proceeding. The New York Court has facilitated negotiations between the parties in order for the father to commence in-person visitation with the child.

Both California and New York appear equally familiar with the facts and issues.

Finally, this Court need not engage in any further analysis under DRL §76-g, "Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct," for the reasons stated hereinabove, that the mother did not engage in any "unjustifiable conduct" which would warrant this New York Court declining jurisdiction. Notably, both the mother and the Attorney for the Child, in their written summations, take the position that there is no "home state," that the mother did not engage in "unjustifiable conduct," that the child has a "significant connection" to New York, and that New York is not an "inconvenient forum."

A few points in the father's attorney's brief bear mention. The father's counsel asserts that while he requested a copy of the recording of the proceedings on March 21, 2024, the Court only provided opposing counsel a copy of the recording. This is false. The father's counsel did make such a request at the conclusion of the March 21st proceedings, however he never followed up on his request. At some time after the March 21, 2024 hearing, the mother's counsel ordered a stenographic transcription of the proceedings, and the recording was obtained by the stenographer who had been hired to transcribe the proceedings. The father's counsel was likewise free to order a transcription — or follow up on his original request for a copy of the recording — however he failed to do so. Once the Court learned, at the beginning of the April 11th proceedings, that the mother's counsel had obtained a transcript of the March 21st proceedings, it ordered the mother's counsel to provide the father's counsel with a copy of the transcript. Later, the Court granted the father's counsel's request for extension on the submission of written post-hearing summations to provide him with ample time to review all transcripts. The father's counsel's claim that this Court acted unfairly or provided the mother something to which the father was equally entitled is patently false.

Further, the father's counsel asserts that this Court held communications with the California court that were required to be disclosed and recorded. D.R.L. § 75-i(3) provides, "Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication." As was placed on the record, there have been several informal communications between the courts regarding scheduling, court records, and similar matters. No substantive legal or factual issue was discussed or decided, as such was reserved for the upcoming June 3, 2024 recorded UCCJEA conference. Just as the initial UCCJEA conference held on February 15, 2024, was duly recorded, so too will the June 3rd UCCJEA judicial conference be recorded.

This New York Court and the California Court will hold the final UCCJEA judicial [*10]conference on June 3, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. EST./11:00 a.m. PST. The parties and counsel shall appear in their respective jurisdictions. A Microsoft TEAMS link will be provided for this hybrid in-person and virtual proceeding.

SO ORDERED.