Case Update (20 March 2025): CT v. Superior Court; custody jurisdiction is determined at the time the proceeding was commenced/filed
The case is before the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, and is certified for publication. The parties’ child was born in 2018. In February 2019, the child’s Father filed the instant lawsuit in the Superior Court, seeking a domestic violence restraining order against the child’s other parent, based on conduct that also led to criminal charges being filed. The Father also sought sole legal and physical custody. Certain orders were issued, and ultimately, the Father filed a motion in April 2024, requesting to relocate to Denmark with the child for a job opportunity starting in May 2024. The case has been pending all that time - 2019 through the present. The trial court held a hearing on the Father’s relocation request on April 25, 2024, and, on May 2, 2024, granted the Father’s request, but made clear that the order was not a final or permanent custody order, but that it was in the child’s best interest to relocate with the Father on the shortened timeframe. The order mandated interim therapeutic visitation in California or Denmark. There was another hearing set for June 11, 2024 to confirm and order the visitation schedule, and a hearing for July 24, 2024 to consider all evidence including the custody evaluation ordered by the court. On June 21, 2024, the Father filed an ex parte application seeking a determination that the court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA because no one presently resided in California - he and the child now resided in Denmark and the Mother presumably resided in Utah. At a hearing in August 2024, the court concluded that no one resided in California, but also concluded that the court had continuing jurisdiction over the case.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that initial custody jurisdiction is found if, “among other bases, California is the child’s home state when the proceeding is commenced.” California was in fact the child’s home state in February 2019, when this lawsuit was commenced/filed. The court also cited to the provision of the UCCJEA that relates to continuing exclusive jurisdiction over a determination already made by the court in California. The Court of Appeal asked “whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to make any orders as to custody or visitation when it made its … determination, as [Father] contends…”. To answer this question, the Court of Appeal referred to the official commentary of the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and noted that it is entitled to substantial weight. The official comment notes that “the date upon which the ‘do not presently reside’ circumstance must exist in order to divest the court of jurisdiction is the date of commencement of the relevant proceeding…” Jurisdiction attaches at the commencement of a proceeding. “If State A had jurisdiction under this section [of the UCCJEA] at the time a modification proceeding was commenced there, it would not be lost by all parties moving out of the State prior to the conclusion of [the] proceeding. State B would not have jurisdiction to hear a modification unless State A decided that State B was more appropriate under Section 207.”
Note, even though California has jurisdiction to proceed with the ongoing/pending custody matter, Denmark may also have jurisdiction under its own laws. It is not unusual that, given the wording of the UCCJEA as compared to the internal custody jurisdiction laws of other countries, and the lack of ratification of the Hague Child Protection Convention by the U.S., that there may be simultaneous custody lawsuits in the U.S. and another country.
