16 Cal. App. 5th 508
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Parents Brittney and Joseph L. lived in Arizona with three children; maternal grandparents obtained custody of two older children in 2012 and later terminated the parents' rights for those children.
- In March 2014 the parents brought seven-year-old Aiden to California; four months later (August 2014) law enforcement discovered drugs in the motel room where Aiden slept and Brittney was arrested; the LA County DCFS detained Aiden and placed him with a maternal great-aunt in California.
- DCFS filed a dependency petition in California (Welf. & Inst. Code § 300); parents received reunification services, which were later terminated; parents had sporadic participation and later returned to Arizona.
- In 2016 the juvenile court found Aiden adoptable and terminated parental rights (Aug 8, 2016); siblings and maternal grandparents (in Arizona) appealed, arguing California lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction because Arizona was the home state.
- The appellate court held the juvenile court never addressed UCCJEA jurisdiction or contacted Arizona, and vacated the termination order, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine home-state or other UCCJEA jurisdiction and to comply with UCCJEA procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (home-state or significant-connection basis) | Brittney: Arizona was Aiden's home state; California should have contacted Arizona and deferred | Department: California properly exercised jurisdiction and record supports jurisdiction | Vacated termination; remand for juvenile court to hold evidentiary hearing to determine home-state/temporary-absence and if California may exercise jurisdiction under §3421(a)(2); must contact Arizona if warranted |
| Whether exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction allowed final custody orders without contacting home state | Brittney: Temporary emergency jurisdiction does not permit permanent orders when another state may be home state; court should have given Arizona opportunity to decide | Department: relied on California presence and emergency detention to proceed | Court: Temporary emergency jurisdiction alone insufficient; if another state may be home state court must contact that state and follow UCCJEA before entering permanent orders |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cristian, 224 Cal.App.4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App.) (temporary emergency jurisdiction limited; further evidentiary hearing required before asserting permanent jurisdiction)
- Ocegueda v. Perreira, 232 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal. Ct. App.) ("lived" = physical presence; avoids intent inquiry for home-state analysis)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (Cal. Ct. App.) (temporary jurisdiction cannot be converted to permanent without complying with UCCJEA procedures)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (Cal. Ct. App.) (jurisdictional fact findings reviewed for substantial evidence when facts are contested)
- In re A.C., 13 Cal.App.5th 661 (Cal. Ct. App.) (UCCJEA is exclusive means to determine appropriate forum; appellate scope of review on jurisdictional facts)
- In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court must contact foreign/home state court and give it opportunity to exercise jurisdiction)
- In re C.T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. Ct. App.) (temporary emergency jurisdiction limits and requirement to address UCCJEA jurisdiction before permanent orders)
- In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App.) (temporary absence analysis requires considering parents' intent and circumstances)
- In re Nelson B., 215 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App.) (unauthorized removal and related considerations in home-state/temporary-absence analysis)