Thygesen v. Wang CA1/4
A158691
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Child born November 2018; father (Thygesen) lived in San Francisco; mother (Wang) gave varying addresses (Utah, Los Angeles, New York) in different filings.
- Mother filed a paternity/child-support action in Los Angeles and later in New York; father filed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and sought sole custody in San Francisco on Feb 15, 2019.
- On March 6 the San Francisco court issued an amended temporary restraining order awarding father sole custody and explicitly found California had UCCJEA jurisdiction and that mother had notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Father retrieved the child from Utah on March 7; a Utah shelter order removed the child from mother and Utah proceedings were stayed because of California’s prior exercise of custody jurisdiction.
- Mother later contested jurisdiction; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found Utah was the child’s home state. Father appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the March 6 UCCJEA jurisdictional finding was binding because mother had notice/opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thygesen) | Defendant's Argument (Wang) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could reconsider its March 6 UCCJEA jurisdictional finding | Mother’s later objection was untimely; the March 6 determination was binding under §3406 | A jurisdictional challenge may be raised at any time, especially because the March 6 TRO was effectively ex parte | Reversed: initial UCCJEA finding binding where opposing party had notice and opportunity to be heard; court erred in reconsidering jurisdiction |
| Whether mother had been given sufficient notice/opportunity under §3408 to make the March 6 determination binding | Father: mother had actual notice (docket access, phone contact, TRO emailed to her counsel) and failed to avail herself of hearing | Mother: she lacked proper notice of the custody issue at the TRO hearing and thus could challenge jurisdiction later | Held for father: actual notice existed; failure to act made the UCCJEA finding binding |
| Whether a temporary restraining order custody determination can constitute a UCCJEA child custody determination | Father: TRO awarding custody is a child custody determination under the UCCJEA and triggers §3406 binding effect | Mother: TRO was temporary/ex parte and thus not a binding custody determination without contested hearing | Court: TRO was a child custody determination; when opposing party had notice/opportunity it binds under §3406 |
| Father’s claim that the trial court violated his due process/right to cross-examine by cutting off examination and evidence | Father contends his cross-examination was impermissibly curtailed and trial court denied due process | Mother defends trial management and credibility findings | Not reached on appeal (court reversed on jurisdictional grounds and did not address remaining claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.L., 4 Cal.App.5th 125 (Cal. App. 2016) (describing UCCJEA purpose: avoid interstate custody conflicts and relitigation)
- In re J.W., 53 Cal.App.5th 347 (Cal. App. 2020) (UCCJEA challenges subject to forfeiture rules; not a fundamental-jurisdiction exception)
- In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. App. 2009) (actual notice can satisfy §3408; exclusive continuing jurisdiction avoids forum-shopping)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (Cal. App. 2015) (review of UCCJEA jurisdictional rulings)
- In re Marriage of Sareen, 153 Cal.App.4th 371 (Cal. App. 2007) (procedural standards for quashing jurisdiction under UCCJEA)
- In re Marriage of Torres, 62 Cal.App.4th 1367 (Cal. App. 1998) (upholding jurisdictional finding where record shows actual notice of custody hearing)