28 Cal.App.5th 74
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Twins E.R. and D.R. were born in Nevada in April 2017 and tested positive for methamphetamine; parents (Mother A.C. and Father E.R.) have extensive criminal/dependency histories and prior termination of parental rights to older children in Ventura County, California.
- Clark County (Nevada) DFS filed a dependency petition; children were placed with Nevada foster parents and Nevada court sustained the petition in May 2017.
- Nevada judge, after telephonic coordination with the Ventura County judge, declined to continue exercising jurisdiction and ordered files transferred to California, finding California the more appropriate forum.
- Ventura County HSA filed dependency petitions in California in July 2017; Ventura juvenile court assumed jurisdiction, bypassed reunification services for Mother and (after hearing) for Father, and later terminated both parents’ parental rights at a Welfare & Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.
- Father indicated possible Native American ancestry pointing to a paternal great-grandmother; HSA sent notice to Apache tribes but did not interview the great-grandmother; the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply.
- HSA conceded it failed to complete ICWA notice/investigation; the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the termination orders and remanded for further ICWA inquiry (interview great-grandmother and determine ICWA applicability), otherwise to reinstate the terminations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction after Nevada declined jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | HSA: Nevada declined jurisdiction in favor of California, so California properly exercised jurisdiction under Fam. Code §3421(a)(3) | Parents: Nevada was the home state and only Nevada had jurisdiction; Nevada’s declination was improper or ambiguous | Held: California had jurisdiction; Nevada’s explicit declination authorized California to assume jurisdiction under §3421(a)(3) |
| Whether inter-court communication before declining jurisdiction was improper | HSA: communication between courts is permissible and promotes cooperation | Parents: Nevada’s communications with California before declining were improper and tainted the declination | Held: Permitted; uniform acts encourage judicial communication and the Nevada court’s communications were proper |
| Whether parents were precluded from challenging forum convenience after failing to pursue it | Parents: Juvenile court prevented them from presenting evidence on inconvenient forum | HSA: Parents had opportunities at multiple hearings and did not pursue the issue or appeal Nevada’s order | Held: Parents abandoned the issue by not presenting evidence or appealing the Nevada decision; collateral attack on final Nevada judgment is improper |
| Whether ICWA procedures were satisfied | HSA: initially believed tribes were notified and ICWA did not apply | Parents: HSA failed to adequately investigate (did not interview paternal great-grandmother) and failed to give proper ICWA notice | Held: HSA conceded noncompliance; termination orders reversed and remanded for required ICWA investigation and notice; if court later finds ICWA inapplicable, terminations to be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C., 13 Cal.App.5th 661 (discussing UCCJEA jurisdiction when another state declines jurisdiction)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (recognizing effect of another state’s declination under UCCJEA)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (full faith and credit for final judgments of other states)
- In re K.M., 172 Cal.App.4th 115 (agency and court duty to inquire into possible Indian child status under ICWA)
- In re Desiree F., 83 Cal.App.4th 460 (continuing duty to provide additional tribal notice when ICWA issues arise)