CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Interstate Custody/UCCJA
......Jurisdiction: In General
.........International Application
22 Cards On This Topic:

Custody decrees of foreign countries will be enforced under UCCJA if certain due process requirements met. [Repealed.]

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.

H's ne exeat right constituted a right of custody under Hague Convention, giving him authority to consent before W could take C out of Chile; return not required if abducting parent can establish Convention exception.

District court improperly extended comity to Greek court's Hague order where Greek court misapplied key provisions of Convention, made unreasonable factual findings, and considered merits of custody dispute.

No Hague or ICARA violation by mother in removing Cs from Greece where no shared settled intention by parents to shift habitual residence of Cs from U.S. to Greece; 4 mos. stay insufficient.

Dist. ct. erred in failing to consider alternative remedies by means of which Cs could be transferred back to Canada without risking psychological harm.

Usual claim & issue preclusion rules don't apply to ICARA and Hague claims—fed. cts judging Hague petitions accord FF&C only to judgments of state/fed. courts that actually adjudicated Hague claim under Hague & ICARA rules.

Abuse of discretion for dist. ct. to stay Hague Convention proceedings because of pending state custody/divorce case where issues in suit under Convention would not be resolved by state suit in which no Hague Convention claim raised.

"Ne exeat" clause contained in foreign custody agreement does not constitute "rights of custody" under Hague Convention.

If mother permanently returned to Hawaii from Canada, whence Cs removed by father, ICARA and Hague Convention did not apply and Hawaiian court had jurisdiction to decide custody.

Because mother barred by law from possessing requisite intent to establish domicile in Hawaii, her petition to seek children's return to Canada under Hague Convention was not moot.

H failed to meet his burden of establishing ameliorative measures would protect Cs from his excessive drinking and abusive behavior.

Family court correct in granting mother’s motion to dismiss father’s OSC for custody change where mother properly moved child to Austria, which had jurisdiction over custody.

SJ for W proper where H failed to establish that her retention of son in U.S. was in breach of H’s rights of custody under Israeli law and therefore "wrongful" under Hague Convention.

As mother did not show hers was the ••only•• reasonable view, Court deferred to trial ct.'s holding that 9-yr.-old was of sufficient age and maturity under Hague exception for his views against returning to Chile to be considered.

Mother's argument that F could not oppose her Hague Convention petition because he was not adjudicated C's father was without merit where she admitted his parentage, and he was named on birth certificate she submitted.

Mother did not support her assertion that trial court should have rescinded its order of temporary custody to F and honored her prior Chilean custody order pending determination of her Hague Convention petition.

UCCJA applies in custody cases involving international as well as interstate conflicts.

Because F made a general appearance through his atty at hearing on petition to terminate parental rights, he consented to court's exercise of jurisdiction and failure to comply with Hague Service Convention was cured.

Juvenile court properly exercised initial jurisdiction under UCCJA; every indication was California was appropriate forum.

Custody decree of foreign country enforceable under UCCJA if country assumed jurisdiction under rules substantially in accordance with UCCJA and all parties have reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

UCCJA applied in international situation.