28 Cal. App. 5th 74
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Twins E.R. and D.R. were born in Nevada in April 2017 and tested positive for amphetamines; parents have significant prior dependency and criminal history in Ventura County, California.
- Clark County (Nevada) DFS filed a dependency; Nevada juvenile court sustained the petition, ordered placement in Nevada foster care, then in July 2017 declined to continue exercising jurisdiction and directed transfer of the case to Ventura County, California.
- Ventura County HSA filed dependency petitions in California on July 31, 2017; the California juvenile court accepted jurisdiction and ultimately bypassed reunification services for Mother and Father and set a section 366.26 hearing.
- At the February 21, 2018 section 366.26 hearing the California juvenile court terminated parental rights and found the children adoptable.
- Father indicated possible Indian ancestry and provided a paternal great-grandmother’s contact; HSA’s ICWA investigation did not include interviewing that relative and later conceded it had not complied with ICWA notice requirements.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed that California had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Nevada had declined jurisdiction, but conditionally reversed the terminations and remanded for proper ICWA inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | HSA/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California juvenile court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Nevada was the home state and only Nevada had jurisdiction | Nevada declined jurisdiction in favor of California, so California may exercise jurisdiction under Fam. Code §3421(a)(3) | California had jurisdiction because Nevada expressly declined to exercise jurisdiction and transferred the case |
| Validity of Nevada court’s communication with California before declining jurisdiction | Nevada’s pre-declination communications and lack of detailed findings rendered its declination invalid | Inter-state communication is permitted and a declination need not contain detailed findings; declination can be implied or explicit | Court upheld Nevada’s declination and found such communication permissible; parents could have appealed Nevada order but did not |
| Whether parents were prevented from litigating inconvenient-forum/inconvenient-forum issue | Juvenile court foreclosed presentation of evidence on forum convenience | Parents had multiple hearings and opportunities but did not pursue the issue; they effectively abandoned it | Court found no abuse of discretion; parents failed to present evidence across many hearings |
| Whether ICWA inquiry/notice was adequate | HSA failed to interview paternal great‑grandmother and did not fully investigate tribal membership | HSA conceded noncompliance and agreed termination orders should be vacated for limited ICWA determination | Terminations reversed and remanded for HSA to interview the great‑grandmother and complete ICWA inquiry; if ICWA still inapplicable, trial court to reinstate terminations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.C., 13 Cal.App.5th 661 (Cal. Ct. App.) (UCCJEA declination by another state gives California jurisdiction)
- Schneer v. Llaurado, 242 Cal.App.4th 1276 (Cal. Ct. App.) (recognizing declination principles under UCCJEA)
- In re Marriage of Richardson, 179 Cal.App.4th 1240 (Cal. Ct. App.) (forum‑convenience and UCCJEA analysis)
- In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal.App.4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App.) (parent's continued residence as relevant state contact)
- State ex rel. Aycock v. Mowrey, 45 Ohio St.3d 347 (Ohio 1989) (purpose of uniform child‑custody acts is interstate judicial cooperation)
- Johnson v. Ellis, 621 So.2d 661 (Miss. 1993) (interstate court communication before declining jurisdiction is permissible)
- Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1998) (full faith and credit to out‑of‑state final judgments)
- Armstrong v. Armstrong, 15 Cal.3d 942 (Cal. 1976) (final judgments of other states are conclusive on issues properly resolved)
- In re K.M., 172 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App.) (affirmative duty to inquire about Indian status under ICWA)
- In re Desiree F., 83 Cal.App.4th 460 (Cal. Ct. App.) (continuing duty to provide tribal notice if ICWA info discovered later)
- In re Kahlen W., 233 Cal.App.3d 1414 (Cal. Ct. App.) (notice is mandatory regardless of timing when possible Indian heritage is uncovered)