Skip to content
Name: In re Kayla W. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 99
Case #: B326119
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/25/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 11/14/2023

Mother’s failure to object to California’s exercise of jurisdiction waived the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) issue. Minor was removed from Mother during a trip to California. Mother was born in California but had been living in Nevada for the prior 18 months with the father of Minor’s younger siblings. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court reported that it had conferred with Nevada authorities and that court would not assert jurisdiction if Minor was placed with maternal grandfather. At the jurisdiction hearing, which the Nevada court attended telephonically, the Nevada court relinquished jurisdiction after being assured…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.C.
Case #: B322778
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/18/2023

The juvenile court erred by failing to determine if it had jurisdiction over the minors under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The minors were removed from Mother and a dependency action initiated. The whereabouts of the minors’ respective fathers remained unknown throughout the proceedings. Both of the minors were born in Texas, where Mother claimed she had recently fled to escape an abusive relationship. Mother told the Agency she had previously lived in Florida and Arizona and mentioned a prior child welfare case involving the minors in Texas, but assured the Agency that the case had…

View Full Summary
Name: A.H. v. Superior Court
Case #: G061648
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/17/2023

The juvenile court properly found temporary emergency jurisdiction over the minors pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Three minors were detained when police observed signs of physical abuse on them. Mother and stepfather, who was the biological father of the youngest minor, were arrested. The family had recently relocated to the area from Texas and were living in a motel. The father of the older two children was incarcerated in Texas. The juvenile court took emergency jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA. About a week later, the juvenile court contacted the Texas state court, which said…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.P.
Case #: H047586
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/01/2020

The juvenile court has the authority under section 385 and Family Code section 7642 to reconsider its prior parentage findings. A dependency action was filed after mother was arrested for driving under the influence. J.P. and his younger half-brother, A.A. were taken into protective custody. A.A.'s father, Albert, told the social worker that he was not J.P.'s biological father, but wanted to adopt him. J.P.'s biological father was determined to be his presumed father, but did not make his whereabouts known to the Department and did not visit with J.P. A.A. and J.P. were placed with Albert's parents as a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Anna T.
Case #: B299987
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/13/2020

Where juvenile court expressly declined to issue exit orders following termination of jurisdiction, its post termination orders regarding healthcare decisions were vacated, and the original family court orders prevailed. A dependency petition was filed, and jurisdiction assumed, after the family court entered a final judgment awarding Todd T. sole legal authority to make healthcare decisions for his daughter, Anna T. When the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction a year later, it expressly declined to issue an exit order under section 362.4 reverting back to the original family law decision. However, the court ordered Anna to continue in treatment with…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.W. et al.
Case #: E074079
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/11/2020

The UCCJEA does not regulate a court's fundamental jurisdiction, and therefore can be forfeited by a failure to raise the issue in the trial court. In an appeal from the termination of his parental rights, father contended for the first time that the trial court failed to comply with the UCCJEA, and that Louisiana should have been the forum for the case. The appellate court declined to address the issue on the merits, holding that Father had forfeited the ability to raise the argument. Forfeiture would not apply if UCCJEA provisions governing jurisdiction implicated the court's fundamental jurisdiction, but they…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.O.
Case #: E073131
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/04/2020

A joint recommendation report under section 241.1 was not required where minor's dual status under sections 300 and 602 was modified to dismiss dependency jurisdiction. Since July of 2016, S.O. had been subject to dual jurisdiction under both Welfare and Institutions Code sections 300 and 602. DCFS was designated as the lead agency. In June 2019, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceedings, effectively modifying jurisdiction from dual status to single. S.O. appealed, contending that the court abused its discretion in modifying jurisdiction without obtaining a section 241.1 dual status report and thus failing to make…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Austin J.
Case #: B299564
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/15/2020

California had subject matter jurisdiction over dependency case where mother had been living in California for six months prior to the filing of the petition, and the juvenile court did not modify previous orders made in North Carolina. Mother was involved in a prior dependency action regarding the children in North Carolina. The minors were initially removed, and then returned to her. A year later, the Department opened a new investigation regarding mother. A North Carolina social worker who attempted to visit the family reported that she lost contact because the family moved to California. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re D.R. et al
Case #: B293330
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 08/30/2009

Reversal was required where DCFS did not exercise due diligence in noticing father by failing to perform a search based on the unique information provided. During the dependency proceedings, father's whereabouts were unknown. DCFS filed due diligence reports that it had served four local addresses and placed notice in a Los Angeles publication. At the September 2017 section 366.26 hearing, father's whereabouts were still unknown to the court. However, older half-sister Blanca appeared and DCFS was ordered to assess her for placement of the minors. At a visit with Blanca, the minors talked to father…

View Full Summary
Name: In re E.W.
Case #: B295083
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 07/29/2019

The California court which issued custody orders involving the minor had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Mother and father were divorced. Under a Family Court order issued in California in 2014, the parents shared joint legal custody of the minor. The minor lived with mother in South Carolina, and spent nine weeks during the summers with father in Los Angeles. During a visit to Los Angeles, the minor disclosed allegations of physical abuse by mother. The juvenile court in Los Angeles declared the minor a dependent, removed him from mother, released him to father,…

View Full Summary