## Facts

- Leslie Ben-Yehoshua (wife), a U.S. citizen, and Shimshon Ben-Yehoshua (husband), an Israeli citizen, married in Israel in 1962 and lived there for about 13 years with their three children.
- On June 25, 1975, the wife traveled with the children to Kings County, California, stating the trip was to visit her mother and not initially intended as a separation.
- On July 9, 1975, about two weeks after arriving, the wife filed for legal separation in California and obtained an ex parte temporary order granting her custody and restraining the husband from removing the children from California.
- The husband came to California, accepted service, appeared with counsel, and stipulated to temporary custody in the wife with limited visitation and to a custody investigation; the court also enjoined him from removing the children.
- In late July or early August 1975, the husband removed the children from California without the wife’s consent and took them to Israel, where he initiated proceedings and obtained a custody order.
- The California trial court entered an interlocutory dissolution decree awarding the wife custody, ordering child support and fees, and dividing certain Israeli real property by awarding the wife an undivided one-half interest in two parcels.
- The husband appealed the custody, child support, and Israeli property-division portions of the decree.

## Issues

1. Whether California had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) to make a custody determination when the children had been in California only briefly and Israel had the longstanding family domicile and primary evidence.
2. Whether California could order child support when it lacked UCCJA jurisdiction to decide custody.
3. Whether a California dissolution court could determine and allocate the spouses’ interests in real property located in Israel.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the custody award, holding California lacked UCCJA subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the child support award as dependent on the improper exercise of custody jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the remainder of the interlocutory decree, including the dissolution and the allocation of the parties’ interests in Israeli real property.
- Disposition: affirmed in part and reversed in part, with further proceedings consistent with the jurisdictional ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Child custody jurisdiction under the UCCJA is a statutory subject-matter requirement and cannot be created by consent, waiver, estoppel, or party misconduct.
- “Home state” jurisdiction is preferred; a brief stay (about two weeks before filing and about one month total) does not satisfy the home-state prerequisite when another forum has been the child’s continuous domicile.
- The UCCJA “best interest of the child” language functions as a forum-selection policy directing custody litigation to the forum with the strongest connections and most accessible evidence, not as a merits standard at the jurisdiction stage.
- A parent’s wrongful removal of children in violation of court orders does not supply missing UCCJA jurisdiction.
- A dissolution court with personal jurisdiction over both spouses may adjudicate and allocate their respective marital interests in foreign real property as between themselves, even though the land is located outside the state.

## Conclusion

California was not a proper UCCJA forum to decide custody where the children’s ties, history, and evidence were centered in Israel and their California presence was brief; custody and the related support order were reversed, while the dissolution and the interspousal allocation of Israeli real property were affirmed.


In re Marriage of Ben-Yehoshua, 91 Cal. App. 3d 259, 154 Cal. Rptr. 80 (Ct. App. 1979)