The trial court properly declined to recognize a previous custody order entered in Virginia where the order was entered in Va. when North Carolina was the home state of the children. A custody order not entered in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the UCCJEA, Chapter 50A in NC) and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (the “PKPA”) is not enforceable or entitled to Full Faith and Credit.

The court of appeals addressed an important issue relating to the subject matter jurisdiction of the court to make a child custody determination. The mother argued that the NC court did not have subject matter jurisdiction in the juvenile case because a court in Virginia previously had incorporated a separation agreement into a divorce degree and the agreement contained provisions relating to custody of several of the children at issue in this case. The trial court and the court of appeals disagreed, holding that because NC was the home state of the children at the time the agreement was incorporated into the divorce judgment, the Virginia court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to make a child custody determination. Because the order was entered without jurisdiction, the NC trial court was not required to consider the Va order in the juvenile case. 

The NC UCCJEA and the Va UCCJEA both give the home state priority in making initial custody determinations, in compliance with the federal PKPA. The court of appeals rejected the mother’s argument that while Va. did not have home state jurisdiction at the time the agreement was incorporated, that state did have significant connection/substantial evidence jurisdiction. Both the UCCJEA and the federal PKA allow the use of significant connection/substantial evidence jurisdiction only when there is no home state.