Guadalupe S. v. Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services
152 Cal. Rptr. 3d 550
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gloria A. was declared a dependent child due to lack of parental care and support; Guadalupe S. challenged the dependency orders claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).
- Respondents (Gloria and DCFS) contend the juvenile court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Act and that Guadalupe lacks standing to challenge jurisdiction.
- Gloria was born in Mexico; Mother entered the U.S. and then was deported to Mexico after being arrested for murder; Gloria initially remained in the care of others in California.
- Guadalupe arrived in Los Angeles to seek custody; DCFS removed Gloria from a non-parental custodian and placed her in a foster home, triggering dependency proceedings in California.
- The California juvenile court undertook a home state analysis under the Uniform Act to determine jurisdiction, including consideration of a rogatory letter from a Mexican court.
- The court later found Gloria had the requisite time in California to establish home state jurisdiction, but the record lacked evidence that Gloria and Mother lived in California for six consecutive months immediately before the petition commenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge jurisdiction | Guadalupe has standing to challenge jurisdiction. | DCFS argues Guadalupe lacks standing to challenge the court’s jurisdiction. | Guadalupe has standing to challenge jurisdiction. |
| Whether home state jurisdiction existed | Evidence fails to show Gloria lived with Mother in California for six consecutive months prior to filing. | Court found sufficient time in California under home state criteria. | Substantial evidence does not support home state jurisdiction. |
| Definition of 'immediately' for living-together requirement | Removal gaps may be temporary and still count. | The period of living together must be 'immediately' prior to commencement; large gaps disallow it. | 28-day gap is not 'immediate'; six-month period not satisfied. |
| Alternative basis for jurisdiction | If not home state, court should determine any other basis under the Uniform Act. | Not explicitly contested; standard remand procedure follows. | Remand to determine alternative basis; proceed under Uniform Act if none. |
| Disposition on lack of jurisdiction | Court orders should be reversed for lack of jurisdiction. | Remand for further jurisdictional analysis before effectuating disposition. | Orders reversed and remanded for jurisdictional re-evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (1941) (subject matter jurisdiction must be challenged when an issue arises)
- Keiffer v. Bechtel Corp., 65 Cal.App.4th 893 (1998) (jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time)
- Chromy v. Lawrance, 233 Cal.App.3d 1521 (1991) (court may raise lack of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (2011) (standing requirements for aggrieved parties in appeals)
- In re A. C., 130 Cal.App.4th 854 (2005) (Uniform Act jurisdictional standards and home state analysis)
- In re Joseph D., 19 Cal.App.4th 678 (1993) (Uniform Act jurisdictional application and related procedures)
- In re Alyssa F., 112 Cal.App.4th 846 (2003) (role of international considerations in UCCJEA matters)