Legal Challenges in Cross-Jurisdictional Child Custody Cases

Emma, age 7, has lived with her mother, Mary, in Florida for over a year after moving from Texas. Emma’s initial custody was decided in California, where her father, John, still resides. However, John now seeks to modify custody from California.

Child custody disputes across state lines are resolved under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which provides a structured approach to resolving these issues. It helps determine which state has the authority to make or modify custody decisions, aiming to reduce conflicts and ensure consistent enforcement of custody orders.

The UCCJEA’s framework addresses various jurisdictional aspects, including defining “home state,” handling cases without a clear home state, and dealing with emergency and inconvenient forum situations. This structured approach is essential for maintaining stability and fairness in custody arrangements.

What Is the UCCJEA?

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a framework designed to address jurisdictional issues in child custody cases crossing state lines in the United States. Its primary purpose is to provide a uniform approach to determine which state has the authority to make or modify child custody decisions, thereby minimizing conflicts between states and promoting the enforcement of custody orders.

Under the UCCJEA, a “child custody determination” encompasses any court order related to legal custody, physical custody, or visitation of a child. This definition includes permanent, temporary, initial, and modification orders but excludes orders concerning child support or financial obligations. The Act was established in an effort to ensure that the most appropriate and competent court determines custody based on the child’s home state or significant connections with a state.

The UCCJEA establishes clear rules for deciding jurisdictional disputes, facilitating communication between courts in different states, and enforcing custody orders across state lines. By defining the home state, significant connection, and substantial evidence, the Act aims to create consistency and reduce jurisdictional conflicts, ultimately serving the child’s best interests by promoting stability and continuity in custody arrangements.

The Role of the “Home State”

Under the UCCJEA, jurisdiction for child custody goes to the child’s home state. The term “home state” refers to the state where a child has lived with a parent or guardian for at least six consecutive months before a custody case begins. For infants under six months, it’s the state where they have lived since birth. Temporary absences don’t break this period.

A parent cannot claim a state as the “home state” if the child was unlawfully taken there. The six months is counted back from when the custody case is filed, not the hearing date. If a custody case is already underway in another state, California cannot claim jurisdiction unless the other case is resolved.

When There Is No Home State

If no state qualifies as the home state, jurisdiction can be based on whether the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state and if substantial evidence regarding the child’s care in that jurisdiction is available.

Under the UCCJEA, “significant connection and substantial evidence” means that a state can claim jurisdiction if the child and at least one parent have meaningful ties to the state beyond being physically present. This jurisdictional basis applies if no state qualifies as the child’s home state or the home state court declines to act. The state must have relevant information about the child’s well-being, such as their care and relationships. This provision is an alternative to home state jurisdiction when deemed more appropriate for the case.

Under the UCCJEA, California must refuse to handle a custody case if the person requesting jurisdiction has acted unjustifiably unless:

• All parents or guardians agree to California’s jurisdiction.
• Another state with jurisdiction says California is a better place to decide the case.
• No other state has jurisdiction.

If California declines to take the case, it may set conditions to protect the child and prevent further issues until a suitable court takes over. When two states have valid claims, the one that first claims jurisdiction is prioritized. Additionally, California should not penalize anyone for moving a child due to domestic violence.

What Is Emergency Jurisdiction?

Emergency jurisdiction allows a California court to take temporary custody of a child if the child is in California and faces immediate risks, such as abandonment, abuse, or maltreatment. This also includes cases where a child comes to California to receive gender-affirming health care—such as treatments to align with their gender identity—that they were unable to have in their home state. The California court’s jurisdiction is temporary, meant to address urgent needs and protect the child while considering longer-term solutions.

Once emergency jurisdiction is established, the court must check for existing custody orders from other states or ongoing custody proceedings elsewhere. California courts can make a temporary custody decision if no existing orders or proceedings exist. However, this decision remains in effect only until a court in the appropriate jurisdiction issues a final order.

If the California court is aware that another state is the child’s home state, or there’s uncertainty about jurisdiction, it must contact the home state to determine if that state will take over the case. This ensures that the appropriate court handles custody decisions and avoids conflicting rulings. The emergency jurisdiction provided by California remains valid until the home state or other jurisdiction intervenes or provides a final order.

Inconvenient Forum

“Inconvenient forum” refers to situations where the state where a child custody case is filed may not be the best place to handle the case. According to California Family Code § 3427, before a California court can decide it is an inconvenient forum, it must consider several factors, including:

• The presence and risk of domestic violence and which state can better protect the child.
• How long the child has lived outside California.
• The distance between courts and financial impact on the parties.
• Any agreements between the parties about where the case should be handled.
• The location of evidence and how quickly each court can resolve the case.

California courts must evaluate these factors carefully and allow the parties to present their cases. If the court finds another state more suitable, it can delay proceedings and set conditions for starting the case in that state. However, the court must continue jurisdiction if the case involves gender-affirming health care and the other state’s laws limit access to such care.

International Issues

International custody cases under the UCCJEA can be complex due to differences in legal systems, languages, and cultural practices. Challenges include determining the child’s “home state” when multiple countries are involved and navigating foreign service and notice requirements. Conflicts arise over which jurisdiction has priority, especially when countries have different views on custody and child welfare. Additionally, enforcing U.S. custody orders abroad can be difficult. The UCCJEA’s provisions for international cases include complying with the Hague Service Convention, which can help address these issues. These matters tend to be lengthy and complex legal battles.

Navigating custody disputes under the UCCJEA can be complex, especially involving multiple states. Consulting an attorney ensures you understand jurisdictional rules and protect your rights. For expert guidance, call Khosroabadi & Hill at 858-240-2093 for a free consultation today.