Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Angela H.
224 Cal. App. 4th 1088
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Arizona custody order granted Angela sole custody in 2009; Mark sought custody after learning of abuse allegations.
- Angela and Zachary moved to California with Cristian (and later Alice) in 2011–2012 while Angela remained his custodial parent.
- September 15, 2012 emergency call documented Zachary’s extreme physical abuse of Cristian and neglect of Alice; Cristian hospitalized and Alice sheltered.
- Dependency petitions were filed in California under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300; Cristian and Alice were detained and removed from Angela and Zachary.
- The California juvenile court initially exercised emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA §3424; Arizona later ceded jurisdiction; January 2013 jurisdiction and disposition orders placed Cristian with Mark and denied reunification for Angela.
- Appeals were filed by Angela (and abatement as to Zachary), challenging jurisdiction findings and dispositional orders under UCCJEA; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA | Angela contends procedural defects void jurisdiction | Court properly exercised emergency jurisdiction to protect Cristian | Emergency jurisdiction upheld; errors harmless |
| Whether Arizona ceded jurisdiction and California could proceed | Arizona should retain exclusive jurisdiction | Arizona ceded jurisdiction; California could proceed | Arizona ceded; California validly exercised jurisdiction |
| Whether failure to immediately communicate with Arizona violated UCCJEA or was harmless | Noncompliance prejudicial to Angela | Noncompliance is harmless error | Harmless error given overall compliance and timing |
| Whether the court should have required a second evidentiary hearing before continuing emergency jurisdiction | Second hearing required | No second hearing needed for temporary emergency jurisdiction | No second evidentiary hearing required; appropriate under 3424 |
| Whether the Arizona home-state/inconvenient-forum analysis supported California as proper forum | Arizona should decide custody | California more appropriate forum under §3427/§25-1037 | California found to be appropriate forum given evidence locations and convenience |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C. T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction and harmless error analysis)
- In re Jaheim B., 169 Cal.App.4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (emergency jurisdiction and temporary custody under UCCJEA)
- People v. Beach, 194 Cal.App.3d 955 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (full evidentiary hearing required to determine jurisdiction)
- In re A. C., 130 Cal.App.4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (emergency jurisdiction and detention without permanent custody order)
- In re Nada R., 89 Cal.App.4th 1166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction principles)