Grahm v. Superior Court
34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 270 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a state that makes an initial child custody determination retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify that order as long as one parent continues to reside in that state and exercises visitation rights, thereby maintaining a 'significant connection' with the state.
Facts:
- A father and mother had twin girls, born in California in October 2001.
- With the father's consent, the mother moved with the twin girls to New York in September 2003.
- One month later, in October 2003, a California court entered a judgment based on the parties' stipulation, awarding them joint custody but granting physical custody to the mother.
- The father remained a resident of California following the mother and children's move to New York.
- The custody order granted the father specific periods of custody in California during summers and holidays, as well as visitation in New York.
- The father continued to assert and exercise his visitation rights after the move.
Procedural Posture:
- The California family court entered an original child custody order in October 2003.
- The mother filed a motion to modify custody in a New York court, which dismissed her motion for lack of jurisdiction.
- The New York appellate court affirmed the dismissal.
- The father filed motions in the California family court to modify visitation and custody.
- The California family court (trial court) declined to exercise jurisdiction, finding that California no longer had a significant connection to the case.
- The father (Petitioner) petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the family court to hear his motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California court that made an initial child custody determination lose its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under Family Code section 3422 when the children and one parent move to another state, while the other parent remains in California and continues to exercise visitation rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Hastings, J.
No, the court does not lose its exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction persists unless it determines that both the child and parents no longer have a significant connection to the state and substantial evidence concerning the child's welfare is no longer available in the state. The court held that the precedent set in Kumar v. Superior Court, which interpreted the predecessor statute, remains controlling for the term 'significant connection.' Under this interpretation, a significant connection continues to exist as a matter of law as long as the parent remaining in the state continues to exercise their custody or visitation rights. Because the father remained in California and exercised his visitation rights, a significant connection persists, and the family court erred by focusing only on the mother and children's move to New York.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) in California, specifically regarding the termination of jurisdiction. By carrying forward the judicial interpretation of 'significant connection' from the prior uniform act, the court provides stability and predictability in interstate custody disputes. The ruling prevents a parent who moves out of state with a child from easily divesting the original court of jurisdiction, thereby discouraging forum shopping and ensuring that the parent who remains has a consistent forum to litigate custody and visitation issues.
Unlock the full brief for Grahm v. Superior Court