San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. K.C. (In re A.C.)
220 Cal. Rptr. 3d 725
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Mother (K.C.) and her two sons, A.C. (age 6) and E.C. (15 months), were detained by San Diego police on May 21, 2015 after officers found Mother appearing manic; the children were taken into protective custody and the Agency filed dependency petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300(b).
- Mother reported that she and the children lived in Mexico (Rosarito, Baja California) and that Mexico was the children’s home state; the juvenile court assumed temporary emergency jurisdiction and sought to contact Mexican courts under the UCCJEA.
- The juvenile court sent two e-mails (July 2 and July 6, 2015) and attempted telephone calls to Baja California family court judges asking whether Mexico declined jurisdiction in favor of California; no response was received by the court’s July 14 deadline.
- The juvenile court found it had complied with the UCCJEA, assumed subject matter jurisdiction (finding Mexico had declined jurisdiction), proceeded with dependency proceedings, and ultimately terminated parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan on February 14, 2017.
- Mother appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred: (1) by not verifying/authenticating on the record that the e-mails were sent to and received by the appropriate Mexican judicial authorities, and (2) by lacking UCCJEA jurisdiction under Fam. Code § 3421(a)(2) because there were no significant connections to California or substantial California evidence regarding the children.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Agency/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether failure to verify/authenticate on the record that e-mails were sent to and received by Mexican courts invalidates the juvenile court’s UCCJEA jurisdiction finding | Court should have verified and authenticated that e-mails were addressed to correct authorities and actually received; inaction cannot substitute for an affirmative declination of jurisdiction | Court complied with UCCJEA by attempting good‑faith contact, providing copies of e‑mail/contact info to counsel, and treating nonresponse by Mexico as a declination | Waived on appeal for failure to object below; in any event, appellate court presumptively supports trial court actions and treats nonresponse as tantamount to declination under In re M.M.; no reversible error shown |
| 2. Whether a home state must issue an express order declining jurisdiction under § 3421 before California may assume jurisdiction | Mother: § 3421 requires an affirmative declination; silence/inaction is insufficient | Court/Agency: UCCJEA permits a home state to be treated as having declined jurisdiction when it fails or refuses to engage despite good‑faith attempts | In re M.M. precedent endorsed: inaction or refusal to discuss jurisdiction can be tantamount to declination; court properly concluded Mexico declined |
| 3. Whether § 3421(a)(2)(A) (significant connections beyond physical presence) is met | Mother: No substantial evidence that child and at least one parent had significant connections to California other than mere presence | Agency/Court: Mother and children had substantial ties (Mother long‑time CA resident, visits to maternal grandmother in CA; paternal grandfather provided care and medical assistance to A.C.; Agency provided care and evidence) | Substantial evidence supports significant connections and availability of substantial evidence in California; § 3421(a)(2) satisfied |
| 4. Alternative jurisdictional basis under § 3421(a)(3) (other courts having jurisdiction declined in favor of California) | Mother: Even if (a)(2) fails, Mexico did not effectively decline | Agency/Court: Mexico’s nonresponse left no other state to exercise jurisdiction; (a)(3) applies | Court had jurisdiction under (a)(3) even if (a)(2) were deficient; orders affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.M., 240 Cal.App.4th 703 (reviewing when a foreign court’s inaction can be tantamount to declining jurisdiction)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (clarifying appellate standard of review for contested UCCJEA jurisdictional facts)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (UCCJEA jurisdiction principles cited by parties)
- In re A.M., 224 Cal.App.4th 593 (UCCJEA jurisdiction principles cited by parties)
- Brewer v. Carter, 218 Cal.App.4th 1312 (presence/consent cannot confer UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- Doers v. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist., 23 Cal.3d 180 (issues not raised below are ordinarily forfeited on appeal)
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (appellate courts presume regularity of trial court proceedings when record is silent)