Sometimes a case comes along that we believe every parent should understand, even if it never makes the evening news. Allison Shoemaker v. Zachary Thacher is one of those cases. It is a favorable opinion we received from the South Carolina Court of Appeals that shines a bright light on interstate custody disputes between parents.
Allison Shoemaker (Mother) and Zachary Thacher (Father) were an unmarried couple with a baby son who was conceived in New York. Mother and Father had always been residents of New York. The baby was born in December 2024, in South Carolina when Mother temporarily came to South Carolina to have the child. Mother would later argue that South Carolina was the baby’s home state, but the evidence indicated differently.
Shortly after the child’s birth, Mother returned to New York where she maintained an apartment and the child’s pediatric and other records were located. Father continued to visit his son in New York and Mother remained there for an additional four months with the child.
Meanwhile, Father filed a custody proceeding in New York. Mother was aware of those proceedings and the parties participated in mediation with a New York mediator. During a break in the mediation process in New York, Mother took the baby and went to South Carolina and instituted custody proceedings here. Mother obtained an Order without notice to Father or a hearing in South Carolina that found that this State had jurisdiction over the parties and the child even though Father did not live here, nor had he ever appeared in South Carolina.
Notably, when Mother filed her South Carolina pleadings, she did not follow the requirements necessary under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to inform the Family Court that another proceeding concerning custody of the baby had already been filed in another state court (New York.)
We appeared in the South Carolina Family Court on behalf of Father and moved to vacate the Order here arguing the above grounds. In addition, all the evidence was that the child’s home state was New York, not South Carolina. The Family Court agreed with us and vacated its Order finding that it lacked jurisdiction. Mother appealed.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the Family Court’s decision that Mother’s South Carolina case was correctly dismissed.
At the heart of this case is a law called the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA. South Carolina has adopted it, as have nearly all other states. Its purpose is straightforward: to make sure that only one state at a time handles a child custody case, and that the state handling it is the one with the strongest connection to the child and family.
The UCCJEA establishes a priority system. The most important concept is the child’s home state— defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the custody case was filed. For newborns younger than six months old, the home state is where the child has lived since birth.
Under this framework, a South Carolina court can only take up a custody case if:
– South Carolina is the child’s home state, or was within the six months before filing; or
– No other state qualifies as the home state, and the child has significant connections to South Carolina along with substantial evidence available here; or
– Another state with jurisdiction declined to hear the case.
If another state already has jurisdiction and hasn’t stepped aside, South Carolina must stay out.
Mother argued that she and the baby had lived in South Carolina continuously from his birth until April 2025, and that any trips to New York were simply temporary visits. The court rejected that argument finding that the baby’s New York pediatric records showed four visits from late January through late March, with Mother listing a Brooklyn address each time in the medical records. An email from Mother’s own attorney — sent the day after mediation in New York — stated that Mother “will be living in SC now,” suggesting her move to South Carolina was new, not longstanding. The baby registry Mother created listed a New York address. Her employment remained in New York even when she worked remotely.
Taken together, the Court found that while the child was born in South Carolina, most of his short life had been spent in New York. New York was the home state, and New York had never declined to exercise its jurisdiction.
The Court agreed that under the UCCJEA, jurisdiction must be established first for a South Carolina state court to act. Mother argued that the child’s “best interests” should be considered in the analysis, but the Court disagreed. It found that analysis kicks in only when no state qualifies as the home state.
Here, the evidence showed that New York had jurisdiction as the home state and never relinquished it. South Carolina could not act without New York first declining its jurisdiction, which it never did.
This case highlights the importance of determining where the child actually lived, not just where the child was born. The child’s contacts with a particular state matter insomuch as there is proof of residency of a parent in one state, the child’s medical, educational, and social connections to a particular State, etc.
It also highlights that a parent cannot just leave a state for another with a child and file a custody action in another state. The UCCJEA controls as to which state has jurisdiction to act when it comes to interstate custody disputes. Its purpose is to prohibit jurisdiction shopping or relocating and filing quickly in another state. In this case, the appellate court agreed that Mother’s conduct was an “abuse of the jurisdictional process” and also used that finding as a basis to affirm the dismissal of her South Carolina case.
Interstate custody disputes can be complicated and very expensive. In this instance, father was unfortunately required to fight two different custody cases in two different states before the South Carolina case was dismissed. You can find the opinion here
