In re Parenting of R.A.A. - Home State Jurisdiction Affirmed

Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

by McKinnon](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10846371/in-re-the-parenting-of-raa/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 21, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

IN RE THE PARENTING OF R.A.A.

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 83
• Docket Number: DA 25-0712
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (43.6K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

by Laurie McKinnon

04/21/2026

DA 25-0712
Case Number: DA 25-0712

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 83

IN RE THE PARENTING OF R.A.A.,

A Minor Child

JONATHAN EDWARD ALLEN,

Petitioner and Appellant,

and

PETRONELLA GERLINE
(VAN OOSTEROM) ALLEN,

Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DR-25-137
Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Jonathan Edward Allen, Self-Represented, Eureka, Montana

For Appellee:

Bradley J. Jones, R. Spencer Bradford, Bulman Jones & Cook, PLLC,
Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: March 24, 2026
Decided: April 21, 2026

Filed:

---

Clerk
Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Jonathan Edward Allen (Father) appeals from an order issued by the Nineteenth

Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, dated September 12, 2025, which denied his

emergency motion for temporary custody and dismissed his petition for a permanent

parenting plan without prejudice. The District Court concluded that Montana was no

longer the home state of R.A.A. because she had not lived in Montana for more than two

years and noted that under Montana law it must recognize and enforce a child custody

determination made in a foreign country. We affirm.

¶2 The parties raise several issues on appeal; however, we restate the dispositive issue

as follows:

Whether the District Court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to
establish a parenting plan because Montana is not R.A.A.’s “home state.”

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 Father and Petronella Gerline (Van Oosterom) Allen (Mother) married in 2009 in

Colorado. Father is a United States citizen and Mother is a dual citizen of the United States

and the Netherlands. R.A.A. was born in 2015. Around 2020, the parties moved from

Colorado to Montana where R.A.A. received homeschool education. Father travels

frequently for business, including abroad, and is away for extended periods of time. R.A.A.

resided and attended public school in the Netherlands from June 2022 until May 2023.

Mother returned to the United States with R.A.A. in an apparent effort to reconcile the

parties’ marriage. On August 11, 2023, Mother and R.A.A. left Montana to return to the

Netherlands without the knowledge or consent of Father. Mother filed a petition for a

2
divorce and custody with the District Court of Central Netherlands (Netherlands District

Court) on February 13, 2024, six months after residing in the Netherlands. Nearly one year

later, on January 17, 2025, Father filed a petition in the District Court of The Hague for the

return of R.A.A. invoking the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction (Hague Convention). The District Court of The Hague denied Father’s

petition on March 18, 2025, concluding that although the minor child was wrongfully

removed from the United States, the one-year automatic return period had passed and since

then R.A.A. had become settled in her new environment in the Netherlands. The Court of

Appeal of The Hague dismissed Father’s appeal on May 1, 2025.1 Father has since filed a

report with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and alleges that there is an ongoing criminal

investigation against Mother for alleged child abduction. For this reason, Mother fears

returning to the United States.

¶4 In September of 2025, Father filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Custody

and Petition for Permanent Parenting Plan in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court

(Montana District Court). The Montana District Court dismissed Father’s petition and

motion based on its conclusion that it did not have jurisdiction to overturn the decision of

the Court of Appeal of The Hague and that Montana is no longer the “home state” of R.A.A.

since she had not resided in Montana for more than two years before Father filed this action

in the Montana District Court. Father filed his notice of appeal of the Montana District

Court’s order with this Court in early October. On November 25, 2025, the parties attended

1
Neither party has provided a copy of the decision by the District Court or Court of Appeal of The
Hague; however, neither party disputes the legal conclusions of these courts.
3
a hearing before the Netherlands District Court where both parties were represented by

counsel. Father appeared remotely and with the assistance of an interpreter. On

January 29, 2026, Father filed a motion with this Court to supplement the record with

uncertified copies of the Decision by the Netherlands District Court, dated January 20,

2026, in both English and Dutch. On March 24, 2026, Mother filed with this Court a Notice

of Registering of Foreign Judgment and a certified copy of that Decision, which is

substantively equivalent to the one filed by Father in its reasoning and conclusion that the

Netherlands District Court has jurisdiction to decide legal and physical custody of R.A.A.

but does not have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage between the parties.2 The

Netherlands District Court reasoned that Mother had not established her habitual residence

in the Netherlands because she was uncertain about returning to the United States as the

parties were attempting to reconcile their marriage prior to her filing for divorce. In

contrast, the Netherlands District Court determined that R.A.A. had established her

habitual residence in the Netherlands since she had consistently attended the same primary

school for a period spanning approximately four years, was doing well in school, had

multiple friends and participated in extracurricular activities, and formed meaningful bonds

with her maternal family in the Netherlands. The Netherlands District Court considered

2
On April 16, 2026, Father filed with this Court a Notice of Contest of Registration of Foreign
Judgment stating his intention to appeal the Decision by the Netherlands District Court and arguing
that the Netherlands District Court’s determination that it could exercise child custody jurisdiction
over R.A.A. was not in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody and Enforcement
Act (UCCJEA). The issue of whether the Decision of the Netherlands District Court is in
substantial conformity with the UCCJEA is not on appeal and involves a separate proceeding to
enforce a foreign judgment.
4
Father’s argument that homeschool education would provide R.A.A. with greater

flexibility than public education in the Netherlands to accommodate an international child

custody arrangement but nonetheless determined that it was in the best interest of R.A.A.

for Mother to have full legal custody and granted Father parenting time during R.A.A.’s

school holidays with the possibility of an additional two weeks of special leave from

school.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 Jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination is established by statute.

Section 40-7-201, MCA. “We review a district court’s interpretation and application of

statutes for correctness and will not disturb a district court’s findings of fact unless they

are clearly erroneous.” In re A.V.R., 2025 MT 162, ¶ 9, 423 Mont. 174, 573 P.3d 305.

DISCUSSION

¶6 Whether the District Court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to
establish a parenting plan because Montana is not R.A.A.’s “home state.”

¶7 Father, appearing pro se, understandably stresses the importance of the

determination by The Hague District Court that R.A.A. was wrongfully removed from the

United States and asserts that R.A.A.’s habitual residence in the United States cannot be

lost by wrongful removal. Father offers several legal propositions in support of his

arguments but provides minimal legal authority in support and misapprehends the meaning

of Montana’s child custody jurisdiction statutes. We first discuss the Hague Convention

and applicable federal law before turning to Montana’s child custody jurisdiction statutes.

5
¶8 Under the United States Constitution, treaties entered into by the United States

constitute part of the supreme law of the land. U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2. The United States

ratified the Hague Convention and Congress enacted the International Child Abduction

Remedies Act (ICARA) to implement this treaty. Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68, 71-72,

140 S. Ct. 719, 723 (2020). The Netherlands is also a signatory to the Hague Convention.

Hague Conference on Private Int’l Law, Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil

Aspects of Int’l Child Abduction, Status Table, https://perma.cc/V65R-7XQ5. The

purpose of the Hague Convention is “[t]o address the problem of international child

abductions during domestic disputes.” Monasky, 589 U.S. at 71, 140 S. Ct. at 723 (quoting

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 4, 134 S. Ct. 1224, 1228 (2014)). Under the Hague

Convention, “a child wrongfully removed from her country of ‘habitual residence’

ordinarily must be returned to that country.” Monasky, 589 U.S at 70-71, 140 S. Ct. at

722-23. Article XII of The Hague Convention provides that when “a period of less than

one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority

concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith” and that “even where the

proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year” the

concerned authority “shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that

the child is now settled in its new environment.” Convention on the Civil Aspects of Int’l

Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89 (emphasis added).

“The Convention’s return requirement is a ‘provisional’ remedy that fixes the forum for

custody proceedings.” Monasky, 589 U.S at 72, 140 S. Ct. at 723 (citation omitted). Thus,

6
the purpose of the Hague Convention is to determine the appropriate forum for

international child custody matters, not to establish a child custody arrangement.

¶9 Montana adopted the Uniform Child Custody Act (UCCJA) in 1977 “to promote

uniformity and discourage jurisdictional conflict.” In re A.H.S., 2025 MT 57, ¶ 11, 421

Mont. 196, 571 P.3d 1002. Prior to adoption of the UCCJA by all 50 states, “the disparate

and conflicting exercise of jurisdiction over child custody matters encouraged re-litigation,

forum shopping, and self-help” measures. In re A.H.S., ¶ 11. The purpose of the UCCJA

was to provide uniform criteria for the exercise of a state’s jurisdiction over child custody

disputes. In re A.H.S., ¶ 11. The UCCJA was revised to further advance the Act’s purpose

and to address inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of the UCCJA among the states,

resulting in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which

Montana enacted in 1999. In re A.H.S., ¶ 11. Thus, the UCCJEA provides a stable and

predictable framework for a Montana district court to determine when it can exercise

jurisdiction over a child custody dispute.

¶10 Under the UCCJEA, priority is given to “home-state jurisdiction for child custody

proceedings, under which a state has jurisdiction if it is the child’s ‘home state.’” In re

A.H.S., ¶ 13. Section 40-7-201(1), MCA, provides “the exclusive jurisdictional basis for

making a child custody determination by a court of this state.” Section 40-7-201(2), MCA.

Except in circumstances not relevant here:

a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody
determination only if:

7
(a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the
commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child
within 6 months before commencement of the proceeding and the child
is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues
to live in this state;

Section 40-7-201(1), MCA. An “initial determination” is “the first child custody

determination concerning a particular child.” Section 40-7-103(8), MCA. A child’s “home

state” is “the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at

least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody

proceeding.” Section 40-7-103(7), MCA. “Thus, the Montana Legislature’s intent in

adopting the UCCJA and UCCJEA definition of ‘home state’ was to create a bright-line

rule based on the assumptions that a state is the established home of a child after the child

is integrated into a community of the state and that such integration usually occurs after six

months of living in a community.” In re Marriage of Sampley, 2015 MT 121, ¶ 25, 379

Mont. 131, 347 P.3d 1281. Except in the case of temporary emergency jurisdiction:

a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction . . . if at the time of
commencement of the proceeding a proceeding concerning the custody of
the child had been previously commenced in a court of another state having
jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter unless the
proceeding has been terminated or stayed by the court of the other state
because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under 40-7-108.

Section 40-7-107(1), MCA. The UCCJEA explicitly contemplates international

application of its criteria for determining jurisdiction over child custody matters and

provides that Montana courts “shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United

States for the purpose of applying” child custody jurisdiction and enforcement statutes.3

3
In dictum we have mentioned that a foreign country was not a “state” for the purposes of
8
Section 40-7-136, MCA. Indeed, “a court of this state may enforce an order for the return

of the child that was made under the [Hague Convention] as if it were a child custody

determination.” Section 40-7-302, MCA. Montana courts have a statutory duty to

“recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state if the latter

court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with” the UCCJEA. Section

40-7-303, MCA.

¶11 Here, Montana is no longer R.A.A.’s “home state” as defined by the UCCJEA.

Father filed his petition and motion for emergency custody in early September 2025, nearly

25 months after R.A.A. was last in Montana. Father did not file a Hague petition for the

return of R.A.A. until approximately a year and a half after R.A.A. was removed from the

United States. It is unclear why Father delayed filing a Hague petition for so long.

However, the Netherlands District Court suggests that the parties were negotiating travel

and parenting arrangements for R.A.A during this time. Nonetheless, during that delay

R.A.A. became settled in her new environment in the Netherlands as the District Court of

The Hague concluded and the Court of Appeal of The Hague affirmed. She regularly

attended and did well in public school, became involved in extracurricular activities, and

formed meaningful friendships and familial bonds within her new community in the

Netherlands. Meanwhile, Montana lost home-state jurisdiction over R.A.A. since she had

not resided here for the preceding six months before Father filed for custody in the Montana

UCCJEA. In re A.H.S., ¶ 15. We now clarify that under ordinary circumstances Montana courts
should treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purposes of applying
the UCCJEA according to the plain language of the statute.
9
District Court. Section 40-7-201, MCA. Father’s collateral attack in Montana courts on

the judgment of a court of another jurisdiction is the very kind of re-litigation that the

UCCJEA seeks to discourage.

¶12 Father points to no legal authority whereby a finding that a minor child was

wrongfully taken from her place of habitual residence, yet now settled in her new

environment, overrides a judgment of another jurisdiction that it may properly exercise

child custody jurisdiction. Father does refer to a statute involving unjustifiable conduct by

a party in a parenting dispute, however, that statute deals with the assertion of jurisdiction

by a court of this state, not another jurisdiction’s authority to decide child custody. Section

40-7-109, MCA, provides:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in 40-7-204, if a court of this state has
jurisdiction under this chapter because a person invoking the jurisdiction has
engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise
jurisdiction unless:

(a) the parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the
exercise of jurisdiction;

(b) a court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under 40-7-201
through 40-7-203 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum
under 40-7-108; or

(c) no other state would have jurisdiction under 40-7-201 through 40-7-203.

(Emphasis added.) Section 40-7-109, MCA, is intended to prohibit parties from availing

themselves of Montana jurisdiction in child custody disputes when a party engages in

unjustifiable conduct which results in Montana putatively obtaining home-state

jurisdiction. Indeed, § 40-7-109, MCA, is modeled after § 208 of the model UCCJEA.

10
Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enf’t Act § 208 (Unif. L. Comm’n 1997). Although

this Court is sensitive to the burdens of participating in an international tribunal, we

nonetheless affirm the Montana District Court and, thus, Father must pursue his parenting

interests in the Netherlands District Court. Father waited approximately a year and a half

before taking legal action to return R.A.A. to Montana and as a result Montana lost child

custody jurisdiction over R.A.A.

¶13 Accordingly, the District Court correctly denied Father’s emergency motion for

temporary custody and return of an abducted child and properly determined that it did not

have child custody jurisdiction since Montana is no longer R.A.A.’s “home state” as

defined by the UCCJEA.

¶14 We briefly address Mother’s contention that the District Court’s dismissal without

prejudice is not appealable and that she should be awarded reasonable attorney fees for this

appeal. Matters involving families and parenting are frequently complex and changing.

Accordingly, a dismissal without prejudice does not render the District Court’s order

interlocutory; rather, it is designed to allow the court to consider circumstances that may

have changed. The District Court’s order was final for purposes of appeal because it

constituted a conclusive determination that Montana lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at

the time of commencement of the Montana proceeding. We also conclude that sanctions

against Father are not appropriate as Father understandably availed himself of the

jurisdiction of courts in Montana to seek redress for the District Court of The Hague’s

11
conclusion that R.A.A. was wrongfully removed from the United States but is nonetheless

now settled in her new environment in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSION

¶15 The District Court correctly determined that it did not have child custody

jurisdiction over R.A.A. since Montana is no longer her “home state” and properly noted

that Montana courts have a duty to recognize and enforce valid foreign judgments

registered in the state.

¶16 Affirmed.

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

12