## Facts

- Parents married and lived in California; their child was born and initially resided in California.
- The child was taken to Pakistan, where custody proceedings were initiated.
- Mother filed a child-custody proceeding in California.
- The California trial court treated Pakistan as the child’s “home state” (or otherwise deferred to Pakistan) and declined to exercise California jurisdiction.
- Mother appealed, arguing California had initial jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that deference to Pakistan was improper without the required statutory analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether California had initial child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA as the child’s “home state” (or, alternatively, under another UCCJEA basis).
2. Whether Pakistan could be treated as a “state” for UCCJEA jurisdictional purposes without determining that its custody law was in substantial conformity with UCCJEA jurisdictional standards (and consistent with fundamental human rights).
3. Whether a California court with jurisdiction may decline to exercise it in favor of a foreign proceeding without conducting the UCCJEA’s inconvenient-forum analysis.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s jurisdictional ruling and remanded.
- California was the child’s home state at the relevant time (or otherwise had initial custody jurisdiction), and the trial court erred in treating Pakistan as controlling on home-state grounds.
- A foreign country may be treated as a “state” under the UCCJEA only after the required substantial-conformity (and human-rights) analysis; the trial court could not defer to Pakistan without that determination.
- The trial court’s declination of jurisdiction was invalid because it did not apply the UCCJEA framework, including a proper inconvenient-forum evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- UCCJEA initial custody jurisdiction prioritizes the child’s “home state,” generally defined by the child’s residence with a parent for the statutory period before commencement of the proceeding.
- A child’s presence outside California at filing does not, by itself, eliminate California home-state jurisdiction when the statutory home-state criteria are met.
- A foreign country is treated as a “state” for UCCJEA purposes only if its custody law is in substantial conformity with UCCJEA jurisdictional standards; recognition may be refused if the foreign law violates fundamental human rights.
- International comity does not override the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional scheme; a court must first determine jurisdiction under the statute.
- Even when a California court has jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise it only through the UCCJEA’s inconvenient-forum procedure, applying the statutory factors and making an adequate record.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that California, not Pakistan, had priority to exercise child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that the trial court improperly deferred to foreign proceedings without the statute’s required substantial-conformity and inconvenient-forum analyses; the matter was reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with California’s UCCJEA jurisdiction.


In re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal. App. 4th 478, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (Ct. App. 2009)