Case Update (21 Aug 2025): HH v. JH; Trial Court used wrong legal standard to examine Mother’s request for international relocation

This Court of Appeals decision is not officially published. The facts cited in the opinion leave some initial questions unanswered, but those initial questions were not part of the appeal. For instance, neither parent apparently questions a California court’s jurisdiction to be resolving this case. This case started in December 2020. Earlier that year (although the opinion does not say when), the parents in this case separated, and the Mother and two children moved from California to Taiwan. “Father moved to Taiwan shortly thereafter.” It was then in December 2020 that the Mother filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court for dissolution, and custody. These facts might indicate that no one remained living in California at the time of the initial filing (the “commencement” of the proceeding), which is when custody jurisdiction is actually pinned down. The family litigated the case while living in Taiwan. In July 2023, close to 3 years after the family relocated, the California court gave the parents joint legal custody, the Mother physical custody, and the Father visitation. All of this was intended to be executed in Taiwan. On May 1, 2024, the Mother advised the Father that she accepted a job in California, and would be returning with the children on June 9, 2024. On June 6, 2024, the Father filed a request, in California, for a temporary emergency order to stop the mother from moving. Still, on this date, everyone was in Taiwan presumably, and no one had lived in California for around 4 years. The California court resolved the order - it issued a temporary order requiring the children remain in Taiwan until a more final resolution. The parties then engaged in mediation with a California mediator, who, according to the unpublished opinion, submitted a report to the California court that included statements from both parents and the children in the mediation process. The mediator was a “recommending mediator”, which exists in some counties in California, and the mediator made a recommendation, in their report, that the children should remain in Taiwan at this juncture. During the trial, the judge, who had some confusion over potential conflicts in the mediator’s report, called the mediator ex parte to confirm what the mediator wrote. The court agreed with the mediator, and concluded the children would remain in Taiwan.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals stated the legal standard in California for a relocation (“move-away”) case. First, the court must determine whether there is a final custody order that awards physical custody to one parent. If there is no custody order, then the court determines de novo what is best for the children. If, however, there is a custody order granting one parent physical custody, that parent “has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.” The court noted that a court should “preserve the established mode of custody unless some significant change in circumstances indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.” “In a ‘move-away’ case, a change of custody is not justified simply because the custodial parent has chosen, for any sound good faith reason, to reside in a different location, but only if, as a result of the relocation with that parent, the child will suffer detriment rendering it ‘essential or expedient for the welfare of the child that there be a change.’” The likely impact of the move on the noncustodial parent’s relationship with the children is a relevant factor in determining whether a move would be detrimental to the children, when considered among all relevant factors, and it may be sufficient to justify a change in custody. This places the burden on the noncustodial parent to show such detriment. If they make such a showing, then the court goes into a best interest analysis. In that best interest analysis, the court looks at a variety of factors, and among those factors, the court considers stability and continuity, the distance of the move, relationships between parents and children, the children’s wishes, and the parents’ ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and willingness to put the children’s interests above their own.

The trial court apparently concluded that the July 2023 order was not a final custody order. At trial, the parties reached an agreement, placed terms on the record, and Mother’s counsel submitted a proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, but, for some reason, it was never signed and entered by the trial court. But, because they reached an agreement, they intended for it to be final, and they acted as if it were final, the Court of Appeals concluded it was a final custody order. This then left the trial court applying the wrong legal standard. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded. Also note, just like the Court of Appeals made no reference to how a California court had jurisdiction in 2020 to resolve custody of the parties’ children, there was no mention as to why or how a California court has not lost its continuing exclusive jurisdiction (assuming it even had it) to modify the custody order four years later for a family who all lived in Taiwan.