Court Opinion

ID: 9372091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 19:03:15.106099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.714947
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/17/23 In re M.M. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION EIGHT

In re M.M., a Person Coming                                     B317306
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________                                  Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              Super. Ct. No. 19CCJP06510B
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

M.M.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Stacy Wiese, Judge and Robin R. Kesler, Juvenile Court
Referee. Affirmed.
      Pamela Tripp, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
       Dawyn R. Harrison, Interim County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Peter Ferrera, Principal Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                        ____________________
       A father challenges the juvenile court’s assumption of
jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (“the Act”). We affirm because California has
home state jurisdiction.
       Undesignated section citations are to the Family Code.
                                  I
       This case involves the father’s son, M.M., who was born in
California in November 2020.
       Because the only appellate issue is jurisdiction, the crucial
facts are the family’s location and circumstances when the
Department of Children and Family Services filed the petition in
this case, on December 10, 2020.
       The mother was born in Washington state and came to
California in approximately 2015, when she was 18 years old.
Workers at a transitional home for women in Los Angeles have
known her since then. As of November 2020, the mother had
lived in an apartment in Los Angeles for about three years.
       A jail in Oregon released the father in late October 2020.
The father was not present when M.M. was born. In December
2020, the father was in Rochester, New York, where his parents
live.
       The mother and father have an older child, A.M., who was
born in May 2019. The Department removed A.M. when she was
four months old. In October 2020, a Los Angeles juvenile court
sustained counts that A.M. was at risk due to the father’s history
of violence that included kicking the mother’s stomach when the

                                 2
mother was pregnant with A.M., the mother’s marijuana abuse,
and the mother’s untreated health issues.
       The mother admitted she and the father have a history of
severe domestic violence.
       The mother gave birth to M.M. in November 2020. The
mother and M.M. lived together at a transitional home for one
week, then they lived together at the mother’s apartment.
       The mother had visitation with A.M. two times a week.
She visited A.M. on November 25, 2020.
       When M.M. was two and a half weeks old, a Department
social worker came to the mother’s apartment, interviewed the
mother, and observed M.M. On December 1, 2020, a Department
social worker called the mother and said the Department would
seek a removal order for M.M.
       On December 7, 2020, the Department applied for a
removal order, which the court authorized the same day. The
court’s order allowed entry into the child’s home.
       On December 7 and 8, 2020, the Department searched for
the mother. They could not find her at her apartment. At first,
she did not respond to phone calls or text messages. On
December 8, a Department social worker entered the mother’s
apartment through an unlocked back door. There were dishes in
the sink. It “did not look like mother had packed up” the living
room, which “still had all of the baby’s items” including a “baby
bag.” According to the Department’s report, later on December 8,
the mother called the social worker and said she was visiting
family in Washington state. (One notation in the Department’s
report says the mother called with this information on December
7, but a later section with a description of the circumstances and
content of the call says it was on December 8.)

                                3
       The mother later revealed the Washington story was
untrue. She had immediately called the father after the
Department social worker told her they planned to remove M.M.
The father told her to come to Rochester, New York, to stay with
him and the paternal grandparents, whom the mother had never
met in person. The paternal grandfather paid for a plane ticket.
On approximately December 3, 2020, the mother flew to
Rochester with M.M., who was about three weeks old.
       The mother said she never told anyone she wanted to or
planned to move to Rochester permanently. Before M.M. was
born, she had told the paternal grandfather she would eventually
like to visit. The thought of living there never crossed her mind.
       On December 10, 2020, the Department filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300 petition on behalf of M.M. The
bases for the petition were similar to those for M.M.’s sibling,
A.M.
       The juvenile court held a detention hearing on December
15, 2020. The mother, father, and M.M. were “AWOL.” The
court ordered M.M. to be detained from his parents and issued
warrants for the mother’s and father’s arrest.
       Meanwhile, the mother was staying in Rochester with the
father and the paternal grandparents. This did not go well.
According to the mother, the father was abusive and used drugs.
The paternal grandfather tried to control her.
       By January 2021, the Department had learned the mother
and M.M. were in Rochester. The Department contacted the
sheriff’s department and child welfare agency there. A Rochester
social worker visited the paternal grandfather’s home twice in
mid-January and the social worker did not have safety concerns
about M.M. In late January, the Department sent the California

                                4
arrest warrants and removal warrant to that social worker. In
February, the social worker tried to recover M.M. from the
paternal grandfather’s home, but the paternal grandfather would
not let him enter.
      The paternal grandfather kicked the mother out in March
2021 and would not give M.M. to her. The mother then stayed in
a women’s shelter in Rochester. In April and May 2021, the
mother said she did not know M.M.’s location.
      On April 8, 2021, a Rochester court held a hearing and said
M.M. belonged in Los Angeles. A Department attorney and social
worker, the paternal grandfather, and the father appeared at the
hearing. The paternal grandfather argued M.M. was safe with
the paternal family, but the father said M.M. would come to Los
Angeles. The father did not answer questions about how that
would happen. The father did not bring M.M. to Los Angeles.
      On April 16, 2021, a Rochester social worker made another
unsuccessful attempt to get M.M. from the paternal grandfather’s
home.
      On April 29, 2021, the court in Rochester ordered the
family to produce M.M. to that court or to the Los Angeles Police
Department by the next day. No one produced M.M.
      The mother returned to Los Angeles on May 6, 2021.
      On May 12, 2021, someone referred M.M. to the child
welfare agency in New York because M.M. had missed doctor’s
appointments.
      The Rochester court ultimately issued a warrant for the
paternal grandfather’s arrest because he would not produce M.M.
He was arrested on August 24, 2021. The Rochester child welfare
agency found and detained M.M. the next day, when the paternal

                                5
grandmother brought M.M. to a pediatrician. M.M. returned to
Los Angeles on August 31, 2021.
       On November 10, 2021, the Los Angeles court held a
jurisdiction hearing. Appointed counsel represented the father.
The father argued New York state was the home state because
M.M. was in New York when the Department filed the petition on
December 10, 2020. Counsel noted, “I understand [M.M.’s
presence in New York] was not as authorized by this court.” The
court found California was M.M.’s home state. It sustained most
counts of the petition.
       On December 6, 2021, the court held a disposition hearing.
The court ordered reunification services for the mother but not
the father.
       The father appeals the November 10, 2021 and December 6,
2021 orders for lack of jurisdiction under the Act.
                                  II
       California has jurisdiction under the Act.
       The Act provides a framework to address custody issues
across states. Nearly every state has enacted it. (In re J.W.
(2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 347, 355.)
       The Act has several aims: avoiding jurisdictional
competition and conflict, promoting interstate cooperation,
litigating custody where the child and family have the closest
connections, discouraging continuing conflict over custody,
deterring abductions and unilateral removals of children,
avoiding forum shopping, and avoiding relitigation of another
state’s custody decisions. (See Kumar v. Superior Court (1982) 32
Cal.3d 689, 695 & 698; In re M.M. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 703,
715.)

                               6
       The Act gives four bases for a target state to assume
jurisdiction. The first basis is home state jurisdiction. (§ 3421,
subd. (a)(1).) The remaining bases apply only if there is no home
state or if the home state declines jurisdiction. (Id., subd. (a).)
       The home state is the state where the child lived with a
parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the
first pleading of the child custody proceeding was filed. (§ 3402,
subds. (e) & (g).) For children less than six months old, the home
state is the state where the child “lived from birth” with a parent.
(Id., subd. (g).) A child’s or parent’s “temporary absence” is
counted as part of the relevant time period. (Ibid.)
       We review jurisdictional findings under the Act for
substantial evidence. (In re A.C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 661, 669.)
We independently review the juvenile court’s statutory
interpretation and its determination of jurisdictional facts based
on undisputed evidence. (Id. at p. 670.)
       We are concerned with the jurisdictional facts on December
10, 2020, when the Department filed the petition.
       There is substantial evidence California was M.M.’s home
state on December 10, 2020. “[L]ived” connotes physical presence
with a parent. (Ocegueda v. Perreira (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th
1079, 1087–1089.) M.M. was born in California. He was
physically present with his mother in California from his birth
until he was about three weeks old.
       The mother and M.M. were in New York for about one
week before the petition date, but this was a temporary absence.
       To determine whether an absence is temporary, state
courts have used tests that emphasize either: (1) the duration of
the absence, (2) the parents’ intentions, or (3) the totality of the
circumstances, which typically subsumes the first two tests. (See

                                 7
Chick v. Chick (2004) 164 N.C.App. 444, 449–450 [listing the
three tests and selecting totality of the circumstances]; Charlow,
A., There’s No Place Like Home: Temporary Absences in the
UCCJEA Home State (2015) 28 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. 25,
30–36 [describing the three tests] (Charlow).)
       California courts have considered the temporary absence
issue but have not uniformly selected a test. One court
emphasized duration by explaining it would be a “stretch of
imagination” to find an absence of almost seventeen months, with
the exception of a few days, was temporary. (In re Marriage of
Sareen (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 371, 381.) Another court, in a
footnote, stated the parents’ intent and explained the child’s time
outside California was a temporary absence “under any
applicable standard”. (In re Marriage of Nurie (2009) 176
Cal.App.4th 478, 493, fn. 12 (Nurie).) The court then cited three
out-of-state cases: two that focused on parental intent and a
third that applied the totality of the circumstances approach.
(Ibid.) Another California Court of Appeal cited Nurie and said
courts must consider parents’ intentions, “as well as other factors
relating to the circumstances of the child’s or family’s departure”,
when determining whether an absence is temporary. (In re Aiden
L. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 508, 518.)
       As of December 10, 2020, the absence of M.M. and the
mother was temporary under each of the three tests.
       M.M. and the mother were briefly away from California.
On December 10, 2020, they had been gone for a week.
       The mother intended to return to California with M.M. She
never spoke to anyone about the trip to Rochester being a
permanent move. The thought of living there never crossed her
mind. She had lived in Los Angeles for more than five years and

                                 8
lived in the same apartment for about three years. She left some
of M.M.’s belongings in her apartment. The mother’s daughter,
A.M., was still in California and the mother had weekly visitation
with A.M. The mother had visited the week before she went to
New York. These facts tend to show the mother planned to
return to California.
       The intent test can be problematic when parents have
different intentions. (See Charlow, supra, at pp. 32–33.) The
father apparently intended the trip to be permanent. He wanted
the mother to bring M.M. to New York to create jurisdiction there
instead of California, where he knew the Department sought to
remove M.M. The paternal family ultimately kept M.M. from the
mother. The father’s intent and conduct conflicts with the Act’s
purposes of avoiding jurisdictional conflict, deterring abductions,
and avoiding forum shopping. His intent to obstruct the
Department by avoiding California jurisdiction—and his later
refusal to produce M.M. despite court orders—is the type of
unjustifiable conduct that would require New York to decline
jurisdiction. (See § 3428.) Under these circumstances, his intent
cannot trump the mother’s intent.
       Under the totality of the circumstances test, we consider
duration, intent, and other relevant facts. There is no evidence
the mother acted to create permanency in New York during her
first week there. She stayed with the paternal grandparents
rather than find her own place. Her ultimate return to California
also tends to show the time in New York was temporary. These
facts, together with the short duration and the mother’s intent,
prove the one-week absence was temporary and California had
home state jurisdiction when the proceedings began.

                                 9
        California has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. After a
home state makes a child custody determination, that state has
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, with certain exceptions.
(§ 3422, subd. (a).) The exceptions require a judicial
determination either that (1) the state no longer has a significant
connection to or evidence about the child and parents or (2) the
child and parents no longer reside in the state. (Ibid.) The child
and parents’ departure from a state, alone, does not terminate
the state’s exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. (Nurie, supra, 176
Cal.App.4th at p. 500.)
        The exceptions to California’s exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction do not apply because the statute requires a judicial
determination and there was no such determination. (See Nurie,
supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at pp. 500–501; see also id. at p. 503, fn.
27 [jurisdiction is not “self-terminating”].) Furthermore, the
California court could not have made such a determination on the
dates of the orders the father attacks. At that time, the mother
and M.M. were residing in Los Angeles and California had a
significant connection with them. (See id. at p. 503 [judicial
determination must be contemporaneous].) California continued
to have jurisdiction.
        The father also points to an irrelevant provision. He
argues, even if the court had temporary emergency jurisdiction to
file its December 2020 petition, there was no jurisdiction under
section 3421, subd (a)(2). The basis of California’s jurisdiction is
home state jurisdiction, not temporary emergency jurisdiction.
Subdivision (a)(2) is an alternative basis to make an initial
custody determination and it can apply if home state jurisdiction
does not apply. It is not relevant if California has and asserts
home state jurisdiction, which it did in this case.

                                10
                         DISPOSITION
     The orders are affirmed.

                                       WILEY, J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                               11