San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Erick P.
224 Cal. App. 4th 959
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Father and mother appeal a judgment declaring their minor children dependents and denying placement with father.
- Agency conceded the juvenile court failed to properly comply with the UCCJEA before assuming permanent subject matter jurisdiction, and the court’s order is reversed and remanded.
- Children, US citizens, were traveling from Mexico to Nevada when detained at a San Clemente border checkpoint; mother appeared mentally ill and admitted meth use; children were taken to Polinsky Children’s Center.
- Agency filed a petition alleging the children were at substantial risk due to mother's inability to provide regular care because of mental illness or substance abuse.
- Detention hearings occurred with limited participation by father, who resided in Mexico and could not be located; UCCJEA issue was repeatedly raised at several hearings.
- The court ultimately determined Mexico was the home state and California permanent jurisdiction via temporary emergency jurisdiction, without Mexico’s express decline to exercise home-state jurisdiction, leading to a misapplication of the UCCJEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court have proper UCCJEA home-state jurisdiction before declaring permanent jurisdiction? | Father contends no proper home-state basis (Mexico) existed. | Agency contends jurisdiction was properly established. | No; permanent jurisdiction improper without Mexico's home-state declaration. |
| May temporary emergency jurisdiction ripen into permanent jurisdiction without home-state proceedings? | Father argues temporary emergency jurisdiction may convert automatically. | Agency argues it ripened to permanent due to lack of home-state action. | No; temporary emergency jurisdiction cannot automatically become permanent. |
| Was Mexico properly treated as the home state given lack of Mexican proceedings? | Father argues Mexico should have the opportunity to exercise home-state jurisdiction. | Agency contends the court could proceed without Mexican proceedings. | Court erred by not giving Mexico opportunity to exercise home-state jurisdiction. |
| Does Angel L. support automatic conversion of emergency jurisdiction to permanent? | Father relies on Angel L. as authority for automatic conversion. | Agency and court distinguish Angel L. as dicta and distinguishable. | Angel L. does not permit automatic conversion; misapplied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C. T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. App. Dist. 2002) (temporary emergency jurisdiction cannot ripen into permanent order without proper home-state basis)
- Angel L., 159 Cal.App.4th 1127 (Cal. App. Dist. 2008) (discussion of emergency jurisdiction; distinguishable from current UCCJEA framework)