Mathias, J.
Michael and Caryn Hays (the “Hayses”) appeal the trial court’s order granting custody of B.H. to his mother, Amanda Fisher (f/k/a Amanda Hockett). The Hayses also appeal the trial court’s award of $1,365.00 in attorney fees as being inadequate.
We affirm.
….
The Hayses first argue that the trial court’s custody determination should be reversed because Indiana does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”)….
We initially note that there is a conflict in the case law regarding whether the UCCJA confers subject matter jurisdiction; therefore, we take this opportunity to address the issue….
….
After Stewart and In re S.M. were decided, our court issued several opinions that continue to rely on Williams for the proposition that the UCCJA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. In In re B.J.N., 19 N.E.3d 765, 768–69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), we relied on Williams and held that “jurisdiction for purposes of the UCCJA means jurisdiction over the particular case. Because judgments rendered by courts lacking this type of jurisdiction are only voidable, [the father] waived his challenge when he consented to the [court’s] jurisdiction.” (citations omitted).
….
Since the decisions in Stewart and In re S.M., no Indiana case has cited either case for the proposition that the UCCJA confers subject matter jurisdiction. If the Stewart court wanted to overturn Williams or K.S., it would have done so explicitly, and therefore we believe Stewart is an outlier. Additionally, we decline to disrupt the precedent that our court has set in declining to refer to UCCJA jurisdiction as a question of subject matter jurisdiction. Circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction and are thus empowered to hear all types of cases, including marriage dissolution proceedings and custody actions. In re B.J.N., 19 N.E.3d at 768. Thus, we conclude that the Perry Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the custody action. The Hayses here did not lodge their claims of procedural error, incorrectly framed as jurisdiction issues, in a timely manner. [Footnote omitted.] Instead, the Hayses have brought the issue for the first time on appeal; it is therefore waived.
….
Conclusion
Based on the facts and circumstances before us, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction over the custody of B.H. under the UCCJA, and did not err in awarding custody of B.H. to his Mother. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded $1365.00 in attorney fees to the Hayses’ counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Najam, J., and Barnes, J., concur.