County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department v. Superior Court
243 Cal. App. 4th 230
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Barry Youngblood (California) was named father in a 2010 Zurich paternity/support judgment for Jayden Bischof (child and mother reside in Switzerland); Youngblood did not appear in the Swiss action.
- Zurich judgment ordered ongoing and retroactive child support; Swiss authorities represented paternity was established on mother’s sworn testimony.
- County of Los Angeles Child Support Services registered the Swiss order in California under UIFSA (Family Code § 4900 et seq.) for enforcement in 2013; Youngblood filed to vacate registration claiming lack of personal jurisdiction and that paternity was not established.
- Trial court ordered genetic testing in California to determine parentage and stayed collections; County petitioned for writ and sought immediate stay of the testing order.
- Court of Appeal granted the County’s writ: held California enforcement proceedings under UIFSA do not permit collateral challenges to foreign parentage findings via genetic testing, and vacated the testing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a California court may order genetic testing in a UIFSA registration/enforcement proceeding to challenge foreign paternity/support judgment | County: UIFSA limits responding-state proceedings to enforcement; parentage previously determined abroad cannot be relitigated in California | Youngblood: genetic testing is necessary to show nonparentage and to challenge the issuing court’s personal jurisdiction; discovery should be allowed | No. Genetic testing to relitigate parentage is not permitted in UIFSA enforcement proceedings; parentage determined "by or pursuant to law" abroad is not a collateral defense in California |
| Whether nonparentage or genetic testing can be raised as a basis to vacate registration under Fam. Code § 4956 | County: statutory grounds for vacatur are enumerated and do not include nonparentage or genetic testing | Youngblood: lack of genetic testing denies meaningful ability to contest jurisdiction and thus due process; registration should be vacated or testing allowed | No. § 4956 lists exclusive grounds to vacate registration; nonparentage/genetic testing are not included and UIFSA bars pleading nonparentage as a defense |
| Whether genetic testing can be relevant to a personal-jurisdiction defense in the enforcement proceeding | County: jurisdictional facts (service, contacts) are unrelated to genetic results; conception is conceded to have occurred in Nevada, not Switzerland | Youngblood: test results could bear on whether the Swiss court had jurisdiction (e.g., conception location) | No. Here genetic testing is irrelevant to the personal-jurisdiction issues properly before the responding court; parties concede conception occurred in Nevada, and other jurisdictional bases were asserted |
| Whether denial of genetic testing violates Due Process | Youngblood: without testing he cannot meet his burden to show lack of issuing-court jurisdiction; discovery denial is inherently unconstitutional | County: UIFSA’s limitations on relitigation and vacatur do not violate due process; testing not relevant to allowable issues | No. Under UIFSA, limiting discovery on matters outside the narrow enforcement issues does not violate due process in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Schofield, 62 Cal.App.4th 131 (1998) (questions of law and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785 (1990) (legislative intent and statutory construction principles)
- MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., 134 Cal.App.4th 1076 (2005) (statutory interpretation and use of extrinsic aids)
- In re Marriage of Crosby & Grooms, 116 Cal.App.4th 201 (2004) (UIFSA governs interstate support orders and exclusive jurisdiction concept)
- de Leon v. Jenkins, 143 Cal.App.4th 118 (2006) (use of UIFSA official comments to ascertain legislative intent)
- In re Marriage of Haugh, 225 Cal.App.4th 963 (2014) (continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under UIFSA)
- North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno, 147 Cal.App.4th 762 (2007) (judicial notice limits: courts may notice existence of filings but not the truth of their factual allegations)