In re Victor R. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SJ012901
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Judith D. McConnell, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court asserted UCCJEA jurisdiction over a dependency case for a child who had lived in California for fewer than six months, finding he had no ties to Mexico. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because California was not the child's home state, and remanded for a determination of whether Mexico would assert jurisdiction.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Assertion of UCCJEA jurisdiction and entry of dispositional judgment“We conclude the court lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction; the jurisdictional findings and dispositional judgment must be reversed; and the case must be remanded for proceedings in conformity with UCCJEA.” | de novo | error | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the statutory definition of 'home state' under the UCCJEA, which requires the child to have lived in the state with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding commenced. Since the record established Victor lived in California for fewer than six months, the trial court's contrary finding was legally insufficient to support jurisdiction, making the reversal the only correct outcome. |
Denial of motion to augment the record“We agree and deny the motion.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The court denied the Agency's motion to augment the record with post-judgment items, agreeing with the appellant that the items were not relevant to the appeal. This is a procedural ruling that does not affect the substantive outcome regarding jurisdiction, and the court's brief affirmation is consistent with standard appellate practice for irrelevant post-judgment filings. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236 — UCCJEA is the exclusive method for determining subject matter jurisdiction in dependency proceedings, and 'home state' is defined as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the proceeding commenced.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the controlling statutory definition of 'home state' under the UCCJEA and applies it strictly to the undisputed facts that the child had been in California for less than six months. It appropriately rejects the trial court's equitable concerns about homelessness as irrelevant to the jurisdictional threshold, which is a matter of law.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court made true findings on a dependency petition for Victor R., ordered him placed in foster care, and found it had UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction based on the child's ties to San Diego since January 2013 and the absence of placement options in Mexico. The Court of Appeal, accepting the Agency's concession, held California was not the child's home state because he had lived here fewer than six months when the petition was filed, reversed the jurisdictional findings and dispositional judgment, and remanded for an inquiry whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's finding that it had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make jurisdictional and dispositional orders in the dependency case“Here, the record shows that Victor had lived in California with Alina for fewer than six months. We reverse and remand with directions for an inquiry and determination whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction, with further proceedings as dictated by that determination.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court Under Family Code sections 3402(g) and 3421(a)(1), home state jurisdiction requires the child to have lived in California with a parent for six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding commenced; Victor arrived January 25, 2013 and the petition was filed April 17, 2013, so California plainly was not the home state, and the trial court's reliance on the child's ties, the lack of Mexican placements, and the risk of homelessness is not a recognized basis for home state jurisdiction. The result is correct, though the opinion does not discuss whether the trial court's findings could have supported temporary emergency jurisdiction under section 3424, which is the usual framework when a child present in California faces abandonment or abuse and another state is the home state. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236 — The UCCJEA is the exclusive method for determining subject matter jurisdiction in custody proceedings, applies to dependency cases, and a California court has jurisdiction if California was the child's home state—where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement.
- missed: In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295 — A California juvenile court may exercise emergency jurisdiction over a child physically present in the state whose home is in Mexico when the child has been abused or abandoned, and such jurisdiction may continue while the foreign jurisdiction's position is ascertained.
- missed: In re Jaheim B. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1343 — Under Family Code section 3424 a juvenile court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction in a dependency case over a child present in California who has been abandoned or needs protection, and may make jurisdictional and dispositional orders on that basis pending resolution with the home state.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied the six-month home state rule of Family Code sections 3402 and 3421 to undisputed dates and reached the result the Agency itself conceded, and the remand for an inquiry whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction is consistent with the UCCJEA's treatment of foreign countries as states. It does not, however, address temporary emergency jurisdiction under section 3424 or the Supreme Court's decision in In re Stephanie M., even though the trial court's findings about abuse in Mexico and the risk of homelessness squarely raised that framework and might have permitted the orders to stand as temporary orders rather than be reversed outright.
Opinion
Filed 1/23/14 In re Victor R. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re VICTOR R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D064442 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. SJ012901) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALINA V., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G.
Haehnle, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Julie E. Braden, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor. Alina V. appeals following the jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in the dependency case of her son, Victor R. Alina contends the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam.Code, § 3400 et seq.). The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes the court erred in asserting UCCJEA jurisdiction and requests a limited remand for a hearing regarding subject matter jurisdiction and a determination whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction. We conclude the court lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction; the jurisdictional findings and dispositional judgment must be reversed; and the case must be remanded for proceedings in conformity with UCCJEA.
Victor was born in San Diego County in 2005, but lived in Mexico with Alina and his father Francisco R. (the parents) and attended school there. On January 25, 2013, Alina brought Victor to San Diego County. In March, the Agency received a report the paternal grandfather had sexually abused Victor in Mexico. Alina showed the Agency letters on Mexican government letterhead ordering a medical exam and a services assessment for Victor. On April 16, a Mexican official confirmed there was an active case against the paternal grandfather for sexually abusing Victor and a plan for a child welfare check on Victor's siblings in Mexico. On April 17, the Agency filed a dependency petition for Victor alleging Francisco was incarcerated in Mexico and Alina was in jail in San Diego and they were unable to arrange for Victor's care. Victor was detained in a foster home. In May, he began receiving services in San Diego County.
2 In June, the Agency reported that Victor would be homeless without the court's involvement. No relatives in California or Mexico were available for placement.
On July 19, 2013, the court made a true finding on the petition and ordered Victor placed in foster care. As to UCCJEA, the court made the following findings. Victor had been in San Diego County since January; he went to school here and had ties here. He had no ties to Mexico, no custody orders had been made there and there were no placement possibilities there. The parents planned to live in the United States once they were released from custody. If the court were to find that Mexico was Victor's home state, he would be homeless and on the street.
UCCJEA "is the exclusive method for determining subject matter jurisdiction for custody proceedings in California, and its provisions apply to juvenile dependency proceedings. [Citations.] [As relevant here], a California court has jurisdiction in a dependency case if California was the child's home state when the proceeding commenced, with 'home state' defined as the state in which the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of the proceeding. (Fam. Code, §§ 3402, subd. (g), 3421, subd. (a)(1), 3422.)" (In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236, 245-246.) Here, the record shows that Victor had lived in California with Alina for fewer than six months. We reverse and remand with directions for an inquiry and determination whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction, with further proceedings as dictated by that determination.
The Agency requests that the record be augmented with postjudgment items: a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition; detention, addendum and 3 jurisdictional and dispositional reports; and minute orders. Alina opposes the motion, arguing, inter alia, the requested items are not relevant. We agree and deny the motion.
DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional findings and dispositional judgment are reversed. The case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with UCCJEA. This court's order of January 15, 2014, staying the six-month review hearing, is vacated.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Claudia S. D045602 · 2005-07-21