Schneer v. Llaurado
242 Cal. App. 4th 1276
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Child born June 2011 in Miami. Parents disputed where child "resided" for UCCJEA purposes after periods in Florida and California.
- Father (Schneer) said the family lived in Twentynine Palms, CA from April 2012; mother (Llaurado) took the child to Florida in March 2013 and remained there.
- Father filed a custody petition in California on June 24, 2013; mother moved to quash/dismiss arguing California lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction.
- Evidence at hearing: multiple witnesses (including father’s coworkers and maternal/paternal grandparents) placed the child in California from ~Aug 2012–Mar 2013; mother testified she and child had primarily lived in Miami and returned there in March 2013.
- Trial court held California was not the child’s "home state" because the child had not lived in California for six consecutive months immediately before the petition, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding the UCCJEA’s extended-home-state rule applies where the child was the home state within six months and a parent remains in California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California is the child’s "home state" under UCCJEA §3402/§3421 | Father: child lived in CA for at least six continuous months (Aug 2012–Mar 2013); even though child left before filing, CA was home state within six months and father remained in CA | Mother: child never resided in CA for six consecutive months immediately before filing; thus CA lacks home-state jurisdiction and Florida has significant-connection jurisdiction | Reversed trial court: CA is the home state under §3421(a)(1) because the child lived in CA for six continuous months within six months before filing and a parent continued to reside in CA |
| Standard of review for contested UCCJEA jurisdictional facts | Father: appellate court may reweigh jurisdictional facts (cited cases) | Mother: jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review | Court: where facts are contested, apply substantial-evidence review to trial court’s jurisdictional findings; legal interpretation of UCCJEA reviewed de novo |
| Whether temporary absences defeat continuity of residence under §3402(g) | Father: temporary trips do not break continuous-residence period | Mother: frequent trips to Florida show child did not continuously reside in CA | Held: temporary absences are part of the residence period; evidence supported continuous residence Aug 2012–Mar 2013 |
| Whether appellate court may "reweigh" jurisdictional facts | Father urged independent reweighing per prior dicta | Mother argued for de novo review | Court rejected reweighing dictum; affirmed deference to trial court under substantial-evidence standard when facts are disputed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C., 130 Cal.App.4th 854 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (discussed appellate review of UCCJEA jurisdictional findings)
- In re Marriage of Fox, 180 Cal.App.3d 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (addressed standards for jurisdictional findings under UCCJA and forum non conveniens)
- Clark v. Superior Court, 73 Cal.App.3d 298 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (forum non conveniens discussion cited in Fox)
- Brewer v. Carter, 218 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (held extended six-month home-state rule applied where child left state shortly before filing and a parent remained)
- Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal.4th 434 (Cal. 1996) (principle that undisputed jurisdictional facts present pure legal questions subject to independent review)