Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/7/295.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-23 09:47:53
Document Index: 200436774

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3400', '§ 3400', '§ 3402', '§ 3424', '§ 3407', '§ 3407', '§ 3407', '§ 3401', '§ 3406', '§ 3424', '§ 334', '§ 358', '§ 366', '§ 366', '§ 366', '§ 388', '§ 361', '§ 2', '§ 361', '§ 361', '§ 361', '§ 232', '§ 352', '§ 3403']

In re Stephanie M. (1994) :: :: Supreme Court of California Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › California Case Law › Cal. 4th › Volume 7 › In re Stephanie M. (1994)
In re Stephanie M. (1994)
The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the juvenile court denying a motion for change of placement of a minor from foster care to her grandmother's care. The Court of Appeal concluded that the lower court's error in ruling on the motion for change of placement also required reversal of its ensuing order terminating parental rights. The minor and the San Diego County Department of Social Services (Department) petitioned for review, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its judgment for that of the juvenile court, in failing to accept the proffer on appeal of new evidence regarding the child's best interests and in ordering her immediate transfer to her Mexican guardian without further hearing in the juvenile court. In [7 Cal. 4th 303] response, the parents and Mexico, as amici curiae, have questioned the jurisdiction of any court of this state to determine the custody of the minor, who is a Mexican national.
At the detention hearing on February 15, 1990, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been made that Stephanie was a person described in section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), and ordered her placed in foster care. The court ordered the Department to evaluate the homes of relatives for possible placement and authorized detention of the minor with those relatives if appropriate. [7 Cal. 4th 304]
At the disposition hearing on May 2, 1990, the court received the social worker's report, which noted that two pediatricians agreed that Stephanie had been malnourished in the past. The social worker stated that she had requested a second evaluation of the grandmother's home, as the grandmother herself had been absent when the Mexican social service agency had evaluated it before. The social worker recommended continued foster care. Also before the court was the report of an investigator employed by Stephanie's counsel, declaring that the grandmother had told the investigator that she did not believe the parents had abused Stephanie, and that the girl had [7 Cal. 4th 305] breathing problems as an infant. The grandmother told the investigator, however, that if the child were placed with the grandparents, they would put the child's interest above that of the parents, and would not allow the parents to take Stephanie without court approval.
On June 6, 1991, the juvenile court received a letter from the consul general of Mexico serving in San Diego, noting its duty to protect and aid Mexican nationals and asking the court to consider the grandmother's demonstrated interest in custody of the child, that the Mexican social service [7 Cal. 4th 306] agency had concluded in its second evaluation that the grandmother could meet the needs of the child, and that the entire family, including the child, were Mexican citizens. The consul general asked the court to consider placing the child with the grandmother.
The court ordered increased visitation with the grandmother and set the matter for a contested hearing on September 23, 1991, subsequently continued to October 28, 1991, stipulated to be pursuant to section 388, with the issue to be litigated designated as whether the minor should be placed in the current foster home or with a relative. [7 Cal. 4th 307]
The foster mother testified that the grandmother did not visit or contact the child between March 1990 and March 1991. She testified that the child was reluctant to visit the grandmother and had adverse emotional reactions to the visits, including toileting accidents, biting, fantasy injuries and sleep disturbance. [7 Cal. 4th 308]
[1a] Mother argues that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the matter under review because the failure of the juvenile court and the Department to give notice to the Mexican consulate of the pendency of this dependency action violated the Multilateral Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocol on Disputes of April 24, 1963. (21 U.S.T. 77, T.I.A.S. No. 6820, hereafter Convention.) [7 Cal. 4th 309]
To the extent mother is claiming that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction ab initio, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the juvenile court properly asserted jurisdiction in this matter under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) [7 Cal. 4th 310]
[2] This state has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. fn. 3 (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq., hereafter the act.) This uniform act provides the exclusive method of determining subject matter jurisdiction in custody cases in California. (Adoption of Zachariah K. (1992) 6 Cal. App. 4th 1025, 1034 [8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423].) The act applies to juvenile dependency proceedings (Fam. Code, § 3402, subd. (c); In re Fathom K. (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3d 773, 777 [219 Cal.Rptr. 294]), and actions to terminate parental rights. (In re Gloria F. (1989) 212 Cal. App. 3d 576, 582 [260 Cal. Rptr. 706, 83 A.L.R.4th 729].) The policies of the act apply to international custody disputes. (Fam. Code, § 3424; Miller v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal. 3d 923, 928 [151 Cal. Rptr. 6, 587 P.2d 723]; Plas v. Superior Court (1984) 155 Cal. App. 3d 1008, 1013 [202 Cal. Rptr. 490].)
[1b] The Court of Appeal properly found that the juvenile court had continuing jurisdiction over the minor pursuant to Family Code section [7 Cal. 4th 311] 3403, subdivision (a)(3), providing for emergency jurisdiction. fn. 5 Although we need not determine this point for the purpose of this appeal, it appears that the court also had ongoing jurisdiction under Family Code section 3403, subdivision (a)(2). The child and both parents resided in this state and had a significant connection with this state, and there was substantial evidence developed in this state regarding the ability of the parents to be reunified with the child.
It is undisputed that there was no motion made in this case to quash jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. However, the act provides that a court may make a determination on its own motion that California is not a convenient forum for resolution of a child custody matter. (Fam. Code, § 3407, subd. (a).) The statutory grounds for deciding whether California is the appropriate forum do not turn on notice from another jurisdiction that a custody proceeding is pending in that jurisdiction. (See Fam. Code, § 3407.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeal erred in assuming that without notice of a pending Mexican proceeding, the juvenile court was under no obligation to consider whether it was the appropriate forum. [7 Cal. 4th 312]
Nonetheless, although the juvenile court could have inquired whether the courts of Mexico would assume jurisdiction and provide a more appropriate forum (Fam. Code, § 3407, subd. (d)), we see no abuse of discretion in the court's failure to decline jurisdiction. (See Pieri v. Superior Court (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 114 [1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 742] [applying abuse of discretion standard of review]; In re Marriage of Fox (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 862 [225 Cal. Rptr. 823] [same]; Plas v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d 1008 [same].)
From the time that the juvenile court first exercised jurisdiction over the child's custody in this case, every indication was that California was the appropriate forum. California had continuing jurisdiction because of the emergency presented by the abuse of the child, and the impossibility of returning her immediately to her parents. All the evidence with respect to the abuse and the parents' capacity, in light of this abuse, for reunification, was in this state. It also appears that this state, rather than Mexico, was in the better position to adjudicate the best interest of the child with respect to possible reunification with the parents. The parents, though they were Mexican nationals, resided in California. Both parents acceded to the jurisdiction of the court, and participated in the reunification services the court offered them in an effort to enable them to regain custody of the child. Further, the evidence regarding the child's present and future care and protection was not more readily available in the Mexican jurisdiction, again, because the child's parents resided in this country and all the evidence regarding their ability to resume custody of the child was in this country. The only evidence that was more readily available in Mexico, that is, the evidence of the suitability of the child's grandmother to assume custody pending reunification, was of lesser importance than the evidence available in California; namely, the evidence of the parents' suitability for custody, progress towards reunification, and the progress of the child in foster care. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in failing to decide, on its [7 Cal. 4th 313] own motion, and in the absence of any controversy on the point whatsoever, to decline jurisdiction. fn. 7
[4] We must point out that the policy of the act is not to establish concurrent jurisdiction, but to narrow jurisdiction. (Fam. Code, § 3401; Plas v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal. App. 3d 1008, 1018.) "The Act contemplates that where there is concurrent jurisdiction, only one state should exercise jurisdiction." (Plas v. Superior Court, supra, 155 Cal.App.3d at p. 1018.) As one commentator has explained, "The basic plan of the Act rests on identifying one court as having primary jurisdiction .... Courts in other states are required to defer to that court's continuing jurisdiction and to assist in implementing its orders." (2 Casad, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions (2d ed. 1991) pp. 9-49 to 9-50.)
[5a] There remains the question of what response the courts of this state should make to the letter advising the juvenile court of a guardianship decree in the Mexican court and purporting to authorize the named guardian to take immediate custody of the child and return her to Mexico. The Court of Appeal avoided the issue by pointing out that the matter had not been litigated below because the letter was received after the judgment was final [7 Cal. 4th 314] as to the juvenile court. However, the court honored the spirit of the letter by ordering that custody of the child be transferred to the guardian named in the Mexican decree within 60 days of the finality of its opinion.
[6] The courts of this state may, but are not required to, execute the judgment of a foreign nation as a matter of comity. The doctrine of comity prescribes that a court of this nation recognize the judgment of a court of a foreign nation when the foreign court had proper jurisdiction and enforcement does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy. (Hilton v. Guyot (1895) 159 U.S. 113, 202-203 [40 L. Ed. 95, 121-122, 16 S. Ct. 139]; Victrix S.S. Co., S.A. v. Salen Dry Cargo A.B. (2d Cir. 1987) 825 F.2d 709, 713.) Extension or denial of comity is discretionary and is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. (Remington Rand v. Business Systems, Inc. (3d Cir. 1987) 830 F.2d 1260, 1266.)
If after the filing of the action the court of one state is informed that a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in another [7 Cal. 4th 315] jurisdiction before the court assumed jurisdiction, the court is required to stay the proceedings pending determination of the more convenient forum. (Fam. Code, § 3406, subd. (c).)
One of the primary purposes of the act is to avoid the disruption to the life of a child involved in relitigation of custody matters. (Kumar v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 689, 695-696 [186 Cal. Rptr. 772, 652 P.2d 1003].) [7] We have interpreted former Civil Code section 5163, now Family Code section 3414, to mean that once a custody order is entered by a court with jurisdiction under the act, that court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over any modification of the custody decree as long as that state has "significant connection" jurisdiction under the act. (Kumar v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 696.) It follows that when a California court that has jurisdiction is informed after it has entered a custody decree that another court has commenced modification proceedings on the basis of concurrent jurisdiction, the decree of the California court should be enforced, and any competing decree from another state-or nation-should not.
We note also that a foreign custody order is enforceable under the act only if "reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard were given to all affected persons." (Fam. Code, § 3424; see Miller v. Superior Court, supra, 22 Cal. 3d 923, 928.) In this case, it appears that the Mexican order was obtained ex parte, without notice to the minor or the Department. Accordingly, it does [7 Cal. 4th 316] not appear that the order is entitled to enforcement under Family Code section 3424.
We have outlined the procedures applicable in child dependency matters too recently to require restatement here. (See, e.g., Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 242, 247-250 [19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 698, 851 P.2d 1307].) Suffice it to say that the orders under our review in this case came late in the proceedings, after the court had found jurisdiction (§§ 334, 355), removed the child from her home and placed her in foster care (§ 358), undertaken the six-month and twelve-month review hearings (§ 366), and concluded that it was unlikely the child could be reunified with her parents (§ 366.21). The matter was set for a hearing on selection and implementation of a permanent plan (§ 366.26), that is, for the hearing at which parental rights would [7 Cal. 4th 317] ultimately be terminated, when the parents interposed a motion for a change or reconsideration of the earlier placement order. [10] Such a motion may be brought pursuant to section 388 at any time after the minor has been declared a dependent child of the juvenile court. (See In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 295, 308-309 [19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 544, 851 P.2d 826].)
[11] In any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child's best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity. (Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 531, 538, and fn. 6 [229 Cal. Rptr. 800, 724 P.2d 486, 62 A.L.R.4th 237].) "When custody continues over a significant period, the child's need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role. That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child." (Ibid., fn. omitted; see also In re Marriage of McGinniss (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 473, 478 [9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 182].)
[12] At a hearing on a motion for change of placement, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is new evidence or that there are changed circumstances that make a change of placement in the best interests of the child. (§ 388; In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal. App. 3d 34, 45 [160 Cal. Rptr. 802]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1432(f).)
After the termination of reunification services, the parents' interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point "the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability" (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal. 4th 295, 309), and in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of the child. (Id., at p. 302.) A court hearing a motion for change of placement at this stage of the proceedings must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.
[9b] In the case before us, the juvenile court determined that there was not sufficient evidence produced at the hearing to establish that a change of placement was in the best interests of the child. The court acknowledged [7 Cal. 4th 318] evidence that the grandmother would provide an appropriate home, and that the Mexican social service agency would provide adequate services to the child. It also noted the grandmother's special place in the child's life according to Mexican custom. It noted that it was discounting as a "non-issue" earlier concerns that the child might have had an eye injury and might have been undernourished while she lived in Mexico. It stated that the parents' denial that they abused the child was not relevant to the grandmother's suitability, and concluded that the grandmother would follow the direction of the Mexican social service agency in protecting the child from the parents.
[13] This determination was committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court's ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. (In re Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal. App. 4th 1698 [11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 290]; In re Corey (1964) 230 Cal. App. 2d 813, 832 [41 Cal. Rptr. 379].) As one court has stated, when a court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, " 'a reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations].' " (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 412, 421 [159 Cal. Rptr. 460]; see In re Mark V. (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 754, 759 [225 Cal. Rptr. 460] [accord]; see also Department of Parks & Recreation v. State Personnel Bd. (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 813, 831 [284 Cal. Rptr. 839].) And we have recently warned: "The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of [7 Cal. 4th 319] reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' " (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 272 [279 Cal. Rptr. 576, 807 P.2d 418], quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal. 3d 474, 478-479 [243 Cal. Rptr. 902, 749 P.2d 339].)
[14] The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court failed to give sufficient weight to the relative placement preference set out in section 361.3. The minor urges us to hold that the statutory preference for placement [7 Cal. 4th 320] with relatives does not apply once the juvenile court has terminated reunification services. (Compare In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 1489, 1494 [257 Cal. Rptr. 1] [preference inapplicable at permanency planning stage] with In re Jessica Z. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 1089, 1098-1099 [275 Cal. Rptr. 323] [no bright line when preference ceases to apply].) We decline to do so. The question is academic; relevant provisions of the statute have been amended significantly since the hearing under review (see § 361.3, subd. (d); Stats. 1993, ch. 892, § 2.5), and our interpretation of the statute would be obsolete as soon as we uttered it. Furthermore the record does not indicate that the trial court refused to apply the relative placement preference at the hearing, nor did the Court of Appeal reverse the lower court for failing to apply the preference at the hearing on change of placement. Rather, the reviewing court held that the juvenile court gave insufficient weight to the grandmother's claim for placement preference under the statute from the very beginning of the dependency proceedings, up to and including the hearing on change of placement.
The provision also directed the court to consider, "[i]n determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate" (italics added), the ability [7 Cal. 4th 321] of the relative to provide a secure and stable environment for the child. (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) At the time of the proceedings in this case, the statute provided that among the criteria to be considered in determining the ability of the relative to provide such an environment, the court should consider "the good moral character of the relative; the ability of the relative to exercise proper and effective care and control of the child; the ability of the relative to provide a home and the necessities of life for the child; which relative is most likely to protect the child from his or her parents; which relative is most likely to facilitate visitation with the child's other relatives and to facilitate reunification efforts with the parents; and the best interests of the child." (Former § 361.3, subd. (a).)
The statute acknowledges, then, that the court is not to presume that a child should be placed with a relative, but is to determine whether such a placement is appropriate, taking into account the suitability of the relative's home and the best interest of the child. (See, In re Andrea G. (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 547, 556 [270 Cal. Rptr. 534] [court did not presume relative placement appropriate, but properly considered the factors set out in § 361.3].)
The Court of Appeal relied on In re Jessica Z., supra, 225 Cal. App. 3d 1089, for the proposition that the relative placement preference may be applicable at any stage of the dependency proceeding. However, it failed to analyze the holding of the case, which was that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying a request made at the 12-month review hearing for a change of placement from a foster home to a grandparent, on the ground that the change would disrupt the child's bond with the foster parent and thus be detrimental to the child. (Id., at p. 1100.) The case actually stands for the proposition that regardless of the relative placement preference, the fundamental duty of the court is to assure the best interests of the child, whose bond with a foster parent may require that placement with a relative be rejected.
The question before the juvenile court at the hearing on change of placement was, at bottom, to determine whether a change of placement was in the best interests of the child. The grandmother's home had been evaluated. She testified at the hearing. The court carefully considered the question of placing the child in her custody, and essentially found her home to be a suitable one. Nonetheless, it was the considered judgment of the juvenile court that a change of placement was not in the child's best interest, in view of her fragile emotional state and her successful and enduring bond with the foster parents. We see no abuse of discretion or misapplication of the statute in this conclusion. [7 Cal. 4th 322]
[15] Our review of the record persuades us that the criticisms levied by the Court of Appeal are misplaced, and that the weight to be given to the foreign social services report is not a question that is at issue here. The juvenile court scrupulously reviewed the evidence presented to it at the change of placement hearing, including the report of the Mexican social services agency, and essentially agreed that the grandmother's home was suitable. Nonetheless it found, based on substantial evidence, that a change of placement was not in the child's best interests. Thus the efforts of the [7 Cal. 4th 323] parties to persuade us of the proper level of deference to be accorded a foreign social service report are misguided. The lower court essentially assumed the suitability of the foreign home, but was unpersuaded that the child should be moved.
This comment demonstrates the Court of Appeal's view that grandmother's rights had been violated during the dependency proceeding. However, the issue being litigated at the hearing was whether a change of placement to the grandmother's home would be in the best interests of the child. The juvenile court, unlike the Court of Appeal, properly focussed on the child's interests, rather than the grandmother's interest. From the point of view of the child, the grandmother's intervention did come too late; the child was already bonded to foster parents. We do not read the juvenile court's [7 Cal. 4th 324] statement as suggesting that it was penalizing the grandmother for any delay. Rather, the court was making the point that it was late in the day to consider changing the placement of the child, in view of the child's fragility and her substantial bond to the foster parents. This point was central to the juvenile court's determination that it was not in the child's best interests to undergo a change of placement, and we see no error.
Not only did the Court of Appeal err in giving too great weight to the interest of the grandmother, at a point when the interest of the child in stability had become paramount, it also erred in introducing considerations of national sovereignty and complaints against the Department into a review of proceedings that had to do only with the best interests of the child. The Court of Appeal stated: "We place some weight upon the competition of nationalities involved here. For what reason did the Department evidently assume that its sister agency, DIF, was incapable of adequately protecting Stephanie, a Mexican national with Mexican parents, in her Mexican grandmother's home? The Department repeatedly expressed concern about the distance involved and the difficulties in supervising a Mexican placement. Why then did it not defer jurisdiction to Mexico? It seems the Department may have had problems in taking into account cultural differences between Mexican families and the conventional wisdom of child welfare services in California." [7 Cal. 4th 325]
The juvenile court did not reject the motion for change of placement solely because the child had a satisfactory bond with the foster parents. Rather, the court was careful to explain that the child was quite fragile and had special needs, and that in her particularly delicate condition, a change of placement to a relative whom she barely knew would not be in her best interests. Further, the parents' reliance on authority holding that parental rights may not be terminated solely because the child has bonded to foster parents is misplaced. (See, e.g, In re Rodrigo S. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 1179, 1185 [276 Cal. Rptr. 183] [in termination of parental rights under Civil Code, former § 232, finding of detriment cannot depend solely on potential loss of attachment to foster parents]; In re Venita L. (1987) 191 Cal. App. 3d 1229, 1240 [236 Cal. Rptr. 859] [same at permanency planning hearing].) Unlike the standard analyzed in those cases, the standard the juvenile court was to apply at the hearing on change of placement did not require that it place the child with the grandmother unless such a placement would be detrimental to the child. Rather, the court was to decide whether the parents had carried a burden of showing that the proposed change of placement was in the best interests of the child. [7 Cal. 4th 326]
With respect to the parents' claim that new views have emerged in the field of child psychology questioning the assumption that a child's bond to a "psychological parent" should not be disrupted, we need only respond that the law is not in thrall to passing psychological theory. (See In re Robert J. (1982) 129 Cal. App. 3d 894, 905 [181 Cal. Rptr. 188] (opn. of Grodin, J.); see also In re Mark V., supra, 177 Cal.App.3d at pp. 761-762.) The Legislature has declared that a dependent child has an interest in continuity and stability in placement. (§§ 352, subd. (a), 366.25, subd. (a), 366.26, subd. (b), 388; In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 307, 308-310; In re Heather P. (1989) 209 Cal. App. 3d 886, 892 [257 Cal. Rptr. 545].) This interest was served by the order denying change of placement.
FN 1. Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FN 2. In 1991 the grandmother was 38 years old, the grandfather was 39, and they had 2 children aged 5 and 13 living with them.
FN 3. Every state in the Union has adopted the act. (1 Adams & Sevitch, Cal. Family Law Practice (8th ed. 1993) Interstate Custody, § C.2.)
FN 4. The final basis of jurisdiction established under the statute does not appear to apply here. It is that no other state would have jurisdiction under rules substantially similar to ours, or another state has declined jurisdiction on the grounds of forum non conveniens and it appears it is in the best interest of the child to adjudicate the matter in this state. (Fam. Code, § 3403, subd. (a)(4).)
FN 5. After briefing concluded, mother referred us to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in In re Joseph D. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 678 [23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 574] for the proposition that a juvenile court asserting emergency jurisdiction cannot enter jurisdictional or dispositional orders without contacting the jurisdiction where the child had been most recently residing. The case is inapposite; there the California juvenile court was aware that a sister state custody order was in effect and nonetheless improperly asserted continuing concurrent jurisdiction to determine the child's custody. Here, by contrast, the juvenile court did not assert jurisdiction in the face of a competing foreign custody order.
FN 6. We decline to reach the arguments of Mexico that the juvenile court should have applied Mexican law in adjudicating this dependency matter, because this choice of law question was raised neither in the juvenile court nor in the Court of Appeal, and because it is not a jurisdictional question or a question of international treaty. We also do not separately address the arguments of Mexico that the juvenile court abused its discretion, as these arguments are adequately addressed by the parties.
FN 7. We do urge courts in the future, however, to carefully consider the problem of forum non conveniens in dependency proceedings involving foreign nationals.
FN 8. There was some evidence that her failure to contact the child arose from a misunderstanding that she could not become involved until the dependency proceedings were over.
FN 9. We note that in fact, the grandmother's home was evaluated and considered at earlier proceedings. This is not a case in which the relative's home was not evaluated or considered at all. (Cf. In re Rodger H. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1174, 1184-1185 [279 Cal. Rptr. 406].)
FN 10. Mother argues that the juvenile court was required by the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution to follow the placement recommendation of the Mexican social service agency. She reasons that to allow a state court to reject the placement recommendation of a foreign social service agency would be to permit the state court to conduct foreign affairs, in particular, immigration policy. She claims that the custody of the minor is a "question of international law reserved to the federal government under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution."