C.T. v. Super. Ct., A171160

Background

In 2019, C.T. filed in San Francisco Superior Court for a domestic violence restraining order against K.W., also requesting sole custody of their son, who was born in California in 2018.
The court found California to be the child’s "home state" under the UCCJEA and granted C.T. temporary sole legal and physical custody.
In 2024, C.T. sought court permission to relocate with the child to Denmark, which the court granted, while maintaining interim custody and visitation orders and setting a custody evaluation and evidentiary hearing.
In June 2024, after C.T. and the child moved to Denmark and K.W. resided in Utah, C.T. argued the California court no longer had jurisdiction because none of the parties lived in California.
The trial court found that neither party nor the child resided in California but ruled it retained jurisdiction over the unresolved original custody and visitation proceedings initiated in 2019.
C.T. petitioned for a writ of mandate, seeking to terminate the California court’s jurisdiction under the UCCJEA due to all parties’ relocation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument (C.T.)	Defendant’s Argument (K.W.)	Held
Did the California trial court lose jurisdiction to resolve pending custody/visitation after finding no party resides in California?	Jurisdiction under UCCJEA ended once parties left California; court must relinquish its authority in ongoing custody matter.	Jurisdiction under UCCJEA attaches at proceeding's commencement; court retains authority to resolve original petition through final judgment, even after relocation.	Court retains jurisdiction over unresolved original proceedings; relocation does not divest jurisdiction once properly attached.
Does the timing of the parties’ relocation out of California affect jurisdiction under the UCCJEA?	Jurisdiction lost immediately upon relocation and court recognition under § 3422(a)(2).	Only relevant if relocation occurred before proceeding commenced; if relocation happens after filing, jurisdiction is retained until final determination.	Timing at commencement of the action is key; relocation after does not defeat jurisdiction.
Can the parties' relocation during a pending custody proceeding compel jurisdiction to shift to another state/country?	Yes, once parties have left, another forum should handle any further custody/visitation matters.	No, court’s jurisdiction is not upended by unilateral relocation after a properly commenced custody case remains unresolved.	Jurisdiction is retained to resolve pending matters to final determination.
Is A.M. v. Superior Court controlling precedent for UCCJEA jurisdiction termination?	Yes, supports immediate jurisdiction loss upon all parties relocating, even while action is pending.	No, A.M. does not address jurisdiction when original proceeding is still unresolved or commenced before relocation.	A.M. is distinguishable; controlling rule is that jurisdiction attaches on commencement and is not lost by post-filing relocation.

Key Cases Cited

In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (UCCJEA jurisdiction is determined at action commencement, not later)
In re J.W., 53 Cal.App.5th 347 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (UCCJEA’s goal is to avoid jurisdictional conflict and promote stability in child custody)