Castro v. Haugh
225 Cal. App. 4th 963
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2008, California ordered Father to pay $700 monthly child support for their son.
- Mother moved with the child from California to Texas in 2007; Father moved to Nevada in 2011.
- On January 14, 2013, Father sought a modification of child support based on reduced income.
- Department intervened and argued the California court lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA section 4909 because all parties and the child resided outside California.
- The trial court heard merits and modified the order, reducing support to $508/month, effective February 1, 2013.
- The Department appealed, arguing the court erred in exercising jurisdiction; both parents and the child resided outside California with no written consent to California’s jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify | Department: no; all parties and child resided out-of-state; no written consent. | Father: (not briefed) no contrary position provided; trial court nonetheless could act under original jurisdictional framework. | No continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; order reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201 (2004) (UIFSA framework and jurisdictional principles)
- Stone v. Davis, 148 Cal.App.4th 596 (2007) (continuing, exclusive jurisdiction preserved while reside in issuing state)
- Knabe v. Brister, 154 Cal.App.4th 1316 (2007) (UIFSA continuing jurisdiction doctrine)
- Lunceford v. Lunceford, 204 S.W.3d 699 (Mo.App. 2006) (out-of-state move ends continuing jurisdiction in UIFSA context)
- Zaabel v. Konetski, 807 N.E.2d 372 (Ill. 2004) (Illinois court on UIFSA jurisdiction after out-of-state move)