Court Opinion

ID: 9731005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:30:23.248607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:12.197193
License: Public Domain

SIMS, Acting P. J.
I concur in the decision to affirm the contempt adjudications and to annul the contemporaneous orders terminating the obligation to pay child support until further order of the court and awarding attorney fees.
In my opinion, however, jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, who voluntarily appeared and stipulated to a change in the custody order, was conferred by sections 410.10 and 410.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I believe that the provisions of section 5152 of the. Civil Code do not abrogate the general power of domestic courts with jurisdiction over the person under section 410.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those provisions should be deemed guidelines to the exercise of the court’s discretion to stay or dismiss an action, under section 410.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it finds that in the interest of substantial justice, as outlined in Civil Code section 5152, the action should be heard in a forum outside this state. I am not, therefore, troubled by any inability of a parent to stipulate to the jurisdiction of the court over a matter involving the custody of his or her child (cf. fn. 3 of the opn.).
A petition for a .rehearing was denied April 26, 1977, and the petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 26, 1977.