In Re Baby Girl Clausen

In a 6-1 decision, the Michigan Supreme Court found Iowa had jurisdiction over the adoption proceeding under the PKPA's home state jurisdiction requirement. Chief Justice Michael F. Cavanaugh, in writing for the court, rejected the DeBoers' argument that Michigan courts could modify the Iowa custody ruling. Cavanaugh found that the Iowa courts consistently followed the guidelines of the PKPA and established Iowa as the home state for baby Clausen. The Iowa custody was thus awarded due to the full faith and credit afforded to decrees from sister states under the PKPA in conformity with the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Michigan courts could not exercise jurisdiction over the interstate custody dispute. Cavanaugh also rejected the DeBoers' argument that PKPA and UCCJA required an analysis concerning the best interests of the girl since neither act contained a test to measure the child's best interests.

Because an Iowa district court terminated the DeBoers' rights as temporary guardians under the PKPA, the Michigan Supreme Court determined that the DeBoers had no legal authority in seeking custody in Michigan courts. Thus, when the temporary custody order was terminated, the DeBoers became third parties to the girl and no longer had a legal basis to claim custody.

In the lone dissenting opinion, Justice Levin insisted PKPA actually provided Michigan with jurisdiction to modify the Iowa court order. Levine argued Michigan had both home site status and a sufficient connection to the case for establishing jurisdiction. The girl lived with the DeBoers in Michigan from February of 1991 until July of 1993. She only resided in Iowa for less than three weeks, during which time she was never in custody of either biological parent. According to the facts, Levin contended Michigan indeed had proper jurisdiction under PKPA. Levin argued the majority's finding directly contradicted congressional intent and, if widely accepted, freed courts to manipulate the PKPA in order to justify their own decisions in future child custody cases. Levin wrote that the PKPA actually seeks to avoid courts "blindly ignoring the consideration of the child's best interests."