Scott v. Somers

903 A.2d 663 (2006)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Scott v. Somers

Connecticut Appellate Court
903 A.2d 663 (2006)

Facts

Matthew A. Scott (plaintiff) and Jacklyn A. Somers (defendant) had a child out of wedlock in 1999 in Connecticut. In 2001, Scott and Somers moved to Florida with the child. Scott and Somers's relationship crumbled, and in November 2002, a Florida court granted Somers temporary primary custody of the child, subject to Scott’s visitation rights. Scott and Somers dispute what transpired between 2002 and 2004 with regard to who had custody of the child and for what periods of time. In August 2004, Scott filed an action for custody of the child in Connecticut. In October 2004, the Connecticut court issued an order awarding temporary custody of the child to Scott until the court could discuss the propriety of jurisdiction with the Florida court. The courts were unable to reach an agreement with regard to jurisdiction. Nonetheless, in November 2004, the Connecticut court issued an order retaining jurisdiction and held a final hearing on Scott's application for custody. The Connecticut court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), but did not consider the implications of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), which requires that courts examine the sister state's laws related to jurisdiction. The Connecticut court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child to Scott, subject to visitation by Somers. At the same time the Connecticut court entered its order, the Florida court determined that it had jurisdiction and awarded Somers primary residential custody of the child. Somers appealed the Connecticut order.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bishop, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership