San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Mari M.
240 Cal. App. 4th 703
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Minor (born June 2013) witnessed severe mutual domestic violence between mother and father on Dec 2, 2014 (choking, hitting, throwing objects; father held minor during parts of the incident). Navy issued a military protective order and investigated.
- San Diego County Health and Human Services detained the child and sought dependency jurisdiction; minor was placed with mother and father was ordered to stay away pending services.
- Parents previously lived in Japan; minor has dual U.S.–Japanese citizenship. The juvenile court invoked temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and attempted contact with Japanese family courts about permanent jurisdiction.
- Japanese court officials (and a letter from a Supreme Court of Japan judge) stated Japanese judges may not discuss individual cases with foreign courts and discouraged phone/email contact; a certified letter from the juvenile court received a written response confirming this limitation.
- The juvenile court converted to permanent jurisdiction under Fam. Code § 3421(a)(2), found a section 300(a) dependency (risk of serious physical harm by nonaccidental conduct directed at a parent but placing the child at risk), and declared minor a dependent; mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California could convert temporary emergency jurisdiction to permanent under the UCCJEA when the home state (Japan) refuses to communicate about jurisdiction | UCCJEA allows California to exercise jurisdiction where the home state declines or is effectively unwilling to exercise jurisdiction; Japan’s refusal to communicate is tantamount to declination | Mother: Japan never affirmatively declined jurisdiction; the court should have waited or used additional diplomatic means and should have given Japan more time or explicit notice that silence = declination | Court: Affirmed. A home state's refusal or inability to communicate about jurisdiction, after good‑faith efforts, can be treated as a declination under § 3421(a)(2); California satisfied significant‑connection and substantial‑evidence predicates. |
| Whether the juvenile court erred by not expressly informing mother she could file a custody action in Japan | Agency: No statutory duty to affirmatively advise parties of foreign filing options; mother was represented by counsel and had time to file but did not | Mother: Court should have told her she could commence proceedings in Japan and given more opportunity to do so | Court: No error. No statutory obligation to inform and record shows mother did not pursue a Japan filing despite opportunity. |
| Whether the court erred by finding jurisdiction under Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(a) (nonaccidental infliction of serious physical harm) instead of § 300(b) (exposure to domestic violence) | Agency: Severe, ongoing domestic violence in child’s presence created a substantial risk of serious nonaccidental harm to the child himself, fitting § 300(a) | Mother: Violence was directed at the other parent, not the child; therefore § 300(a) did not apply and, at most, § 300(b) should have been used | Court: Substantial evidence supports section 300(a) finding because the violence was severe, ongoing, the child was in close proximity and at times held by father during the violence, creating substantial risk of serious physical harm. |
| Whether any procedural mistakes in contacting Japan or timing were harmless | Agency: Good‑faith, repeated attempts and a formal certified letter plus the Supreme Court of Japan response show refusal to engage; any timing issue is harmless given the clear Japanese position | Mother: Court didn’t allow sufficient time and letter didn’t state that nonresponse would be treated as declination | Court: Any delay or technical defect was harmless; the Japanese responses had already made clear refusal to engage and court had exhausted reasonable measures. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (applying UCCJEA treatment of foreign country as a state)
- In re A.M., 224 Cal.App.4th 593 (dependency actions are child custody proceedings under UCCJEA)
- In re C.T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (purposes of UCCJEA in dependency context)
- In re Francisco W., 139 Cal.App.4th 695 (dependency policy favoring prompt resolution and permanency)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (harmless‑error standard in dependency proceedings)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless‑error test cited for dependency appeals)
- In re Gino C., 224 Cal.App.4th 959 (juvenile court erred where it never attempted to contact home state)
- In re J.N., 181 Cal.App.4th 1010 (standard of proof and review for section 300 findings)
- In re Christopher C., 182 Cal.App.4th 73 (definition of substantial evidence in dependency context)
- In re Giovanni F., 184 Cal.App.4th 594 (section 300(a) may apply in domestic‑violence exposure cases)
- In re Lana S., 207 Cal.App.4th 94 (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility)