Ocegueda v. Perreira
232 Cal. App. 4th 1079
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (formerly living in California) returned to Hawaii to give birth on or about August 27, 2012; child was born in Hawaii on September 14, 2012 and stayed there with mother for ~41 days.
- Mother brought the newborn to California on October 24, 2012; father filed a parentage/custody petition in Yolo County on October 25, 2012 (action commenced that date).
- Within days the parties stipulated to joint custody and a shared parenting plan in California; mother later filed or threatened a competing action in Hawaii.
- At an evidentiary hearing the California trial court found mother intended to return to California and concluded the child had “lived” in California for the 42 days before filing, so California was the home state under the UCCJEA.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: because the child was born in Hawaii and was physically present in Hawaii from birth until 24 hours before the California filing, the child “lived from birth” in Hawaii and Hawaii was the home state; California’s custody orders were void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ocegueda) | Defendant's Argument (Perreira) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "lived from birth" under UCCJEA requires physical presence or intent to remain | Requires intent to remain; since mother intended to return to CA, child "lived" in CA | "Lived" denotes physical presence; intent irrelevant to whether child lived in a state | "Lived" means physical presence; intent to remain not required to show where child lived |
| Whether a child born in another state but brought to CA <24 hours before filing makes CA the home state | Birth place immaterial if parties intended CA as home; temporary hospital/stay irrelevant | Birth place controls for <6 month-old: home state is state where child lived from birth; here, Hawaii | Child born and physically present in Hawaii from birth until filing → Hawaii is home state |
| Whether temporary absence doctrine converts time in Hawaii into time living in CA | Mother’s temporary absence from CA before birth should be included toward CA home-state period | Temporary absence applies to parent but child must first have been physically present in CA; here child was never present in CA until 24 hours before filing | Temporary absence doctrine cannot reach back to periods before the child was ever in CA; Hawaii residence stands |
| Whether California’s custody orders remain valid pending Hawaii’s declination | California had most significant connection and jurisdiction; orders valid | Hawaii is home state and has not declined jurisdiction, so CA orders are void | Court reversed CA jurisdictional finding; CA custody orders vacated and further proceedings must follow UCCJEA |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sareen, 153 Cal.App.4th 371 (clarifies UCCJEA is exclusive method for interstate custody jurisdiction)
- In re Baby Boy M., 141 Cal.App.4th 588 (for <6‑month infants, place of birth and where child lived from birth are critical to home‑state analysis)
- In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (distinguishes inquiries about temporary absence and parental intent when child lived in multiple jurisdictions)
- Rogers v. Platt (Rogers II), 199 Cal.App.3d 1204 (discusses living with a parent and the role of parental intent in home‑state analysis)
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex.) (interprets "lived" to connote physical presence and rejects subjective‑intent test under UCCJEA)
- In re D.S., 217 Ill.2d 306 (Ill.) (holds brief hospital presence may be de minimis; distinguishes facts where child remained in hospital)
- Calderon‑Garza, 81 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Ct. App.) (supports view that a child must be physically present in a place to be considered to have "lived" there for UCCJEA purposes)