ONCALL
...Family Law
......Interstate Custody/UCCJEA
 18 Cards On This Topic:
  • Trial ct. had jurisdiction to finally determine parents' c/s and visitation rights where court acquired original jurisdiction long before F's relocation; finding the parents and C do not presently reside in CA did not terminate jurisdiction.
  • No UCCJEA violation in terminating mother's parental rights w/out consulting NV court, which had previously relinquished jurisdiction.
  • Forfeiture doctrine did not bar mother's challenge to the juvenile ct.'s compliance with the UCCJEA in termination of parental rights case.
  • Parties' physical presence in CA is insufficient to terminate UCCJEA home state jurisdiction; a judicial determination is required.
  • Only Home State can determine if it is an inconvenient forum.
  • Court not required to permit parties to participate in jurisdictional conference.
  • A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague petition for return of a child once the court has found return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.
  • Refusal to order a psychological examination of child in the face of credible allegations of DV was an abuse of discretion.
  • Failure to make adequate findings in a Hague petition is grounds for reversal.
  • Since C had no home state, CA had jurisdiction based on significant connections.
  • Cutting off support for a child is insufficient to establish unequivocal abandonment, the showing required for deeming a parent not to be exercising custody rights.
  • Before finding grave risk, court must consider whether alternative remedies are available to protect the child on return.
  • Covid-19 does not satisfy the requirement of showing "grave risk" on return absent specific evidence reasonable and necessary precautions will not be taken to protect the child.
  • H failed to meet his burden of establishing ameliorative measures would protect Cs from his excessive drinking and abusive behavior.
  • Grandparents' residence in CA insufficient to give CA continuing UCCJEA jurisdiction.
  • Father's appeal of a Chinese custody order stayed it and meant it could not be registered in CA; hence the trial ct.'s earlier emergency order remained in effect.
  • Hague Convention ceases to apply when child turns 16.
  • UCCJEA is a mandatory rule, but does not regulate a California trial court’s fundamental jurisdiction and can be forfeited by a failure to raise the issue.


    •