E.U. v. J.E.
212 Cal. App. 4th 1377
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Parents S.U. and J.E. divorced (2000); 2006 custody order with reinstatement directive upon deployment; minor attended Oceanside school near father’s home.
- Father deployed to Afghanistan July 2009; September 2009 temporary order awarded mother sole custody and school location near mother.
- Father returned August 2010; protracted proceedings ensued over 17 months; trial court delayed reinstatement and ordered an Evidence Code section 730 evaluation.
- Dr. Miriam Galindo conducted the 730 evaluation (completed January 2012) recommending no reversion to predeployment custody.
- February 2012 hearing denied reinstatement; March 2012 appellate reversal reinstating the 2006 custody order subject to timing of reinstatement.
- Legislative history: 3047 amended in 2011-2012 to emphasize fair, efficient, expeditious process and clearly impact on return of deployed parent’s custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not promptly reinstating predeployment custody under 3047. | E.U. contends reinstatement directive was self-executing. | Court delegation and best interests control delayed reversion; delay acceptable. | Reinstatement directive should have been enforced; reversal ordered. |
| Whether the court properly used 730 evaluation and delays before reinstatement. | Delay and 730 evaluation blocked prompt custody reversion. | 730 evaluation necessary to assess best interests after delay. | Court erred in delaying reinstitution pending 730 evaluation. |
| Whether the 2012 amendments to 3047 affect the case and require different handling. | Amendments clarify speedy resolution for returning servicemembers. | Amendments do not retroactively override factual delays. | Amendments support streamlined process; court must apply corrected standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- John Siebel Associates v. Keele, 188 Cal.App.3d 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (statutory interpretation of reinstatement effect)
- In re Marriage of David & Martha M., 140 Cal.App.4th 96 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for modifying custody orders; best interests)
- In re Daniel C. H., 220 Cal.App.3d 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (review of custody determinations; abuse of discretion standard)
- Faucet v. Vasquez, 411 N.J. Super. 108 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2009) (military deployment custody issues (note: non-CA authority cited in discussion))
- California Teachers Ass’n v. San Diego Community College Dist., 28 Cal.3d 692 (Cal. 1981) (statutory interpretation; precedence for de novo review of statute)
- Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 217 Cal.App.2d 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (definition of 'without prejudice' in orders)
- Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (standard for factual findings; substantial evidence)
- John Siebel Associates v. Keele, 188 Cal.App.3d 560 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (interpretation of judgment effect)