CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Jurisdictional Hearing
.........UCCJA [UCCJEA]
 25 Cards On This Topic:
  • Prompt return of C to country of habitual residence under Hague Convention does not render case moot, and trial courts continue to have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the parties' respective claims.
  • Juvenile ct. properly exercised initial jurisdiction under UCCJA; every indication was that California was appropriate forum.
  • Reviewing court may not reverse juvenile court placement custody order for forum non conveniens when not raised below and other jurisdiction seeks, after final judgment, to relitigate.
  • Temporary hospital stay in a state while giving birth is not sufficient to confer home state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, and HHSA does not become "a person acting as a parent" by detaining C in protective custody in an emergency.
  • UCCJEA does not apply to adoptions.
  • Fam. court erred in finding CA lacked home state jurisdiction where C continuously resided in CA for over 6 mos., and mother moved her to FL less than 6 mos. before F filed custody petition; FC 3402(g) read together with FC 3421(a)(1).
  • Home state of Japan has declined jurisdiction and conferred jurisdiction on CA under the UCCJEA by repeatedly refusing to commit one way or the other to protect C in a custody proceeding or refusing to even discuss jurisdiction with CA.
  • CA cannot be the home state of a child who has never lived here.
  • Juvenile court properly took emergency jurisdiction of Cs whose mother was smuggling heroin from Mex., and orders remain in effect until Mex. is notified and a custody proceeding has began there.
  • Juvenile ct. erred in assuming permanent jurisdiction over Cs without first contacting Mex. to allow it to decide whether or not to exercise home state jurisdiction.
  • Juvenile court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over severely abused child, and any procedural errors in UCCJEA compliance vis-à-vis AZ proceedings were harmless.
  • Substantial evidence did not support finding of "home state" jurisdiction where C and mother [who killed H, fled Mex., was arrested, deported and jailed] did not live for 6 consecutive mos. in CA before dependency petition filed.
  • MD was C's "home state" per the UCCJEA because he lived with an aunt acting as parent in MD for more than 6 consecutive mos. just before dependency proceeding commenced, not counting a temporary absence when he ran away to CA.
  • Barring a threat of mistreatment or abuse in his state of origin, a minor's unilateral decision to run away to CA cannot defeat the home-state status of his origin state under the UCCJEA.
  • When faced with “grave risk” exception, courts must fashion undertakings to ensure safety and quick return of child to habitual residence which do not require the cooperation of abducting parent.
  • Where no jurisdictional competition or conflict, juvenile court properly exercised emergency jurisdiction and CA was proper forum under UCCJEA when it declared C dependent and removed him from parental custody.
  • Juv. court properly assumed emergency and continuing jurisdiction over Cs where CA the appropriate forum as state most directly interested in Cs' welfare, all Cs present and evidence re foster care progress in CA.
  • Child who is a foreign national cannot be made the subject of the Cal. juvenile dependency law simply because Cal. offers better medical care than child's home state.
  • Mex. had SMJ under UCCJEA where Mex. was C's home state, and she was temporarily absent only for medical treatment; jurisdiction not conferred on Cal. court and there was no basis for temp. emergency jurisdiction.
  • Cal. court's finding C abused by F, though not authorized by UCCJEA, included finding under UCCJEA that emergency existed; this sufficient to invoke emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA.
  • Cal. court properly placed C with mother and terminated jurisdiction where no continuing emergency existed.
  • Although Cal. court had emergency jurisdiction over abused C, remand req'd to see whether disposition order proper where no evidence court communicated with Saudi Arabia or whether Saudi custody decree enforceable.
  • 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.
  • Cal. juv. ct. properly conducted plenary hearing under UCCJA as to whether emergency existed re allegedly abused M’s return to Pa.; court should then have deferred to Pa ct.
  • There cannot be concurrent jurisdiction over a minor between two states; Court must follow UCCJA procedures.


    •