## Facts

- Reema Sareen (wife) and Vikas Sareen (husband) married in New Delhi, India, in 2002, moved to New York in 2002, and had a daughter (S.) born in New York in 2004.
- In August 2004, the family traveled to India; within days, husband filed for divorce and sought custody-related relief in an Indian court, including restraints on wife leaving India with S.
- Husband returned to New York; wife and S. remained in India until November 2005, then traveled to New York and relocated to California.
- Wife alleged husband misled her about the trip, withheld immigration and passport documents, and left her and S. without support, delaying their return to the United States; husband disputed these claims and attributed the breakup to wife’s behavior.
- In January 2006, while the Indian custody matter was still pending, wife filed in California for child custody and child support.
- Husband moved to quash for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting India was S.’s “home state” under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and had exclusive jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether India qualified as the child’s “home state” under the UCCJEA, depriving California of initial child-custody jurisdiction.
2. Whether California lacked jurisdiction unless and until the Indian court formally declined to exercise jurisdiction.
3. Whether California had an independent basis for jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, including significant-connection and substantial-evidence jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order granting husband’s motion to quash.
- The court held California had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and the trial court erred in concluding India was the child’s home state.
- The court rejected the trial court’s view that California could not proceed without an order from the Indian court declining jurisdiction.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with California’s jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under the UCCJEA, a child’s “home state” is where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement of the custody proceeding; a foreign country may be treated as a “state” for this analysis.
- A California court must determine its own UCCJEA jurisdiction in the first instance; it may not condition jurisdiction on a foreign court’s formal declination without performing the required statutory analysis.
- A foreign proceeding does not automatically preclude California jurisdiction; the court must evaluate whether the foreign forum is exercising jurisdiction in substantial conformity with UCCJEA standards and whether California has an authorized jurisdictional basis.
- When no exclusive home-state jurisdiction applies, California may exercise jurisdiction based on significant connections and substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, and relationships.

## Conclusion

The court held that India was not the child’s UCCJEA home state for purposes of barring California’s jurisdiction, and that California courts must independently assess UCCJEA jurisdiction rather than deferring to a pending foreign custody matter or requiring a foreign declination before proceeding.


In re Marriage of Sareen, 153 Cal. App. 4th 371, 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)