In re Aiden L.
B277445
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- Brittney and Joseph L. lived in Arizona with three children; maternal grandparents obtained custody of the two older girls in 2012.
- In March 2014 the parents and young Aiden traveled from Arizona to Los Angeles; roughly four months later (Aug. 2014) the Department detained Aiden after Brittney’s arrest for drug- and fraud-related offenses.
- Aiden was placed with his maternal great-aunt Nancy in California; the Department filed a dependency petition in Los Angeles County.
- Reunification services were provided then terminated; after contested proceedings the juvenile court found Aiden adoptable and terminated parental rights on Aug. 8, 2016, designating Nancy as prospective adoptive parent.
- On appeal appellants (mother, maternal grandparents, siblings) argued California lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction because Arizona was the child’s home state and the California court failed to contact Arizona; the Court of Appeal vacated the termination order and remanded for UCCJEA findings and required procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California was Aiden’s home state under the UCCJEA when proceedings began (Aug 2014) | Brittney: Arizona was home state; family’s March 2014 move was a temporary absence | Department: Aiden had lived in California for ~4 months; California jurisdiction appropriate | Remand for evidentiary hearing — juvenile court must determine home-state vs temporary-absence status as of Aug 2014 |
| Whether California could exercise nonemergency jurisdiction under §3421(a)(2) | Brittney: Arizona had stronger connections; California lacked significant non-physical connections | Department: California had substantial evidence and connections to justify jurisdiction | If not home-state, court must evaluate significant-connection and substantial-evidence factors as of filing date on remand |
| Whether court should have contacted Arizona before making permanent orders after exercising temporary emergency jurisdiction (§3424) | Brittney: California was required to contact Arizona and allow it to decide whether to exercise jurisdiction | Department: Proceeding in California was permissible | Court held California must contact home state (or otherwise allow Arizona opportunity to assert/decline jurisdiction) before entering permanent custody orders |
| Standard of review for UCCJEA jurisdictional findings | Appellants: appellate court should independently reweigh jurisdictional facts | Department: defer to juvenile court’s factual findings | Court applied substantial-evidence review for contested facts and directed juvenile court to hold evidentiary hearing to resolve credibility and make findings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cristian I., 224 Cal.App.4th 1088 (discussion of temporary emergency jurisdiction and need for further proceedings)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (temporary emergency jurisdiction does not authorize permanent custody orders; must contact home state)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (substantial-evidence standard applies to contested UCCJEA jurisdictional findings)
- Ocegueda v. Perreira, 232 Cal.App.4th 1079 (interpretation of “lived” and temporary absence under UCCJEA)
- In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (court must attempt communication with home state; inaction by home state can amount to declination)