In re A.C.
D071772
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Mother (K.C.) and her two sons, A.C. (6) and E.C. (15 months), were detained in San Diego after Mother appeared gravely disabled following her return from Mexico; children placed in foster care and dependency petitions (§ 300(b)) were filed May 26, 2015.
- Mother reported that she and the children had lived in Mexico for years; Mexico was treated as the children’s home state under the UCCJEA.
- Juvenile court took temporary emergency jurisdiction and attempted to contact Baja California family-court authorities by phone and by two e‑mails (July 2 and July 6, 2015), asking whether Mexico would exercise jurisdiction or decline in favor of California, and set a July 14 deadline for response.
- No timely response was received; the juvenile court found it had given notice under the UCCJEA and assumed subject-matter jurisdiction under Fam. Code § 3421 (a)(2)/(a)(3). Mother received reunification services but they were later terminated and parental rights were terminated at a § 366.26 hearing; Mother appealed only the jurisdictional ruling.
- Mother’s appellate challenges: (1) court failed to verify/authenticate that its e‑mails were sent to and received by appropriate Mexican judicial authorities; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction under § 3421(a)(2) because the children and a parent lacked significant connections to California and because substantial evidence concerning the children was not available in California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (K.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juvenile court lawfully assumed UCCJEA jurisdiction after Mexican courts did not respond to California’s communications | Agency: Court properly gave notice and, after no response, could treat Mexico’s inaction as a declination and assume jurisdiction under § 3421(a)(2)/(a)(3) | K.C.: Court should have verified/authenticated on the record that e‑mails were sent to correct addresses and received; mere nonresponse cannot be equated to a declination | Held: Affirmed. Court’s attempts and no response supported treating Mexico’s inaction as tantamount to declination; jurisdiction under § 3421(a)(2)/(a)(3) proper |
| Whether court was required to state on the record verification/authentication that e‑mails were sent to and received by Mexican authorities | Agency: Court complied and provided copies of e‑mails/contact info; presumption supports court action when record silent | K.C.: Court erred by not making an on‑the‑record verification/authentication of recipient addresses and receipt | Held: Court did not err. Argument forfeited for failing to raise below; even absent objection, presumption supports court action and any procedural error would be harmless absent showing of prejudice |
| Whether the children and at least one parent had significant connections to California and whether substantial evidence relevant to the children was available in California (§ 3421(a)(2)) | Agency: Mother and children had significant California ties (Mother born/lived in CA; periodic returns; maternal grandmother in CA; paternal grandfather provided daily care for A.C.); child‑welfare evidence existed in CA (Agency, relatives) | K.C.: No significant connections beyond physical presence; insufficient substantial evidence in CA about care/relationships | Held: Substantial evidence supports significant connections and availability of evidence in California; § 3421(a)(2) satisfied |
| Whether jurisdiction could be sustained under § 3421(a)(3) even if (a)(2) not met | Agency: If all other courts having jurisdiction decline because California is more appropriate forum, § 3421(a)(3) applies | K.C.: (Implicit) § 3421(a)(3) not applicable absent express declination by home state | Held: § 3421(a)(3) independently satisfied because no other state (besides Mexico) could plausibly exercise jurisdiction and Mexico declined (via inaction); court had jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (2015) (home‑state inaction or refusal to discuss jurisdiction can be tantamount to a declination under § 3421(a)(2))
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (2015) (substantial‑evidence standard governs UCCJEA jurisdictional findings when facts are contested)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (2014) (UCCJEA jurisdiction principles; cited but found inapposite on facts)
- In re A.M., 224 Cal.App.4th 593 (2014) (discusses limits on conferring jurisdiction by stipulation; cited for background)
- Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist., 23 Cal.3d 180 (1979) (issues not raised below are generally forfeited on appeal)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (1970) (appellate presumptions favor regularity of trial court proceedings when record silent)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless‑error standard; prejudice requirement for reversal of procedural errors)