Filed 1/23/14 In re Victor R. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re VICTOR R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ALINA V., Defendant and Appellant. D064442
(Super. Ct. No. SJ012901)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Reversed a nd remanded with directions. Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy Co unty Counsel, for Plai ntiff and Respondent. Julie E. Braden, under appointmen t by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.2 Alina V. appeals following the jurisd ictional and dispositi onal hearing in the dependency case of her son, Victor R. Alina contends the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam.Code, § 3400 et seq.). The San Diego Count y Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) concedes the court erred in asserting UCCJEA jurisdiction and requests a limited remand for a hearing regarding subject matte r jurisdiction and a determination whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction. We conclude the court lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction; the jurisdictional findings and dispositional judgment must be reversed; and the case must be remande d for proceedings in conformity with
UCCJEA. Victor was born in San Diego County in 2005, but lived in Me xico with Alina and his father Francisco R. (the parents) and attended school there. On January 25, 2013, Alina brought Victor to San Diego County. In March, the Agency received a report the paternal grandfather had sexua lly abused Victor in Mexico . Alina showed the Agency letters on Mexican government letterhead ordering a medical exam and a services assessment for Victor. On April 16, a Mexi can official confirmed there was an active case against the paternal grandfather for sexu ally abusing Victor and a plan for a child welfare check on Victor's siblings in Me xico. On April 17, the Agency filed a dependency petitio n for Victor alleging Francisco was incarcerated in Mexico and Alina was in jail in San Diego and they were unable to arrange for Victor's care. Victor was detained in a foster home. In May, he began receiving services in San Diego County.3 In June, the Agency reported that Victor would be homeless without the court's involvement. No relatives in California or Mexico were available for placement. On July 19, 2013, the cour t made a true finding on th e petition and ordered Victor placed in foster care. As to UCCJEA, the court made the following findings. Victor had been in San Diego County sinc e January; he went to school here and had ties here. He had no ties to Mexico, no cust ody orders had been made there and there were no placement possibilities there. The parents planne d to live in the United States once they were released from custody. If the court we re to find that Mexico was Victor's home state, he would be home less and on the street. UCCJEA "is the exclusive method for dete rmining subject matter jurisdiction for custody proceedings in Califor nia, and its provisions appl y to juvenile dependency proceedings. [Citations.] [As relevant here ], a California court has jurisdiction in a dependency case if California was the ch ild's home state when the proceeding commenced, with 'home state' de fined as the state in which th e child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months imme diately before the commencement of the proceeding. (Fam. Code, §§ 3402, s ubd. (g), 3421, subd. (a)(1), 3422.)" ( In re Claudia S. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 236, 245-246.) Here, the record shows that Victor had lived in California with Alina for fewe r than six months. We reverse and remand with directions for an inquiry and determ ination whether Mexico wishes to assert jurisdiction, with further proceedings as dictated by that determination. The Agency requests that the record be augmented with postjudgment items: a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition; detention, addendum and4 jurisdictional and dispositional reports; and minute orders. Alina opposes the motion, arguing, inter alia, the requested items are not relevant. We agree and deny the motion.
DISPOSITION The jurisdictional findings and dispositi onal judgment are reversed. The case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with U CCJEA. This court's order of January 15, 2014, staying the six-month review hearing, is vacated.

O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BENKE, J.