## Facts

- Keisha W. (Mother) and Marvin M. (Father) had a child, Marvin M. II, born in April 2006, and previously lived in Texas.
- The relationship ended in 2010; a Texas court entered a January 2011 custody order providing for shared custody.
- Mother alleged domestic violence and moved with the child to California in August 2011.
- On May 31, 2012, Father picked up the child from daycare in California and took the child to Nevada.
- In July 2012, the Texas court stated it no longer had custody jurisdiction because neither parent nor the child lived in Texas.
- On August 6, 2012, Mother sought a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) restraining order in Alameda County, including custody relief and modification of the Texas order under the UCCJEA.
- The California court issued a restraining order protecting Mother and child, awarded Mother physical custody, and found it had UCCJEA jurisdiction; in January 2013 it also entered a separate order “accepting” UCCJEA jurisdiction.
- Father appealed both the August 2012 restraining order and the January 2013 jurisdiction-acceptance order; the appeals were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether California had UCCJEA jurisdiction to make custody orders and modify the prior Texas custody order within a DVPA proceeding.
2. Whether the UCCJEA required the California court to communicate with Texas or Nevada courts before modifying the Texas order.
3. Whether an order solely “accepting” UCCJEA jurisdiction is independently appealable.

## Decision

- California had subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to make custody determinations and modify the Texas custody order because Texas had declined continuing jurisdiction and California was the child’s home state.
- The UCCJEA did not require the California court to communicate with Texas or Nevada courts before acting under these circumstances.
- The DVPA restraining order (including its custody provisions) was affirmed.
- The appeal from the separate order “accepting” UCCJEA jurisdiction was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order.

## Legal Principles

- A state becomes a child’s UCCJEA “home state” when the child resides there with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the custody proceeding is commenced.
- When the original decree state indicates it no longer has jurisdiction because the parties no longer reside there, its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction ends, permitting another qualifying state to assume jurisdiction and modify the prior order.
- A parent’s unilateral removal of a child to another state does not create UCCJEA jurisdiction in the new state or defeat the home state’s jurisdiction.
- UCCJEA court-to-court communication duties depend on the statutory posture; communication is not required when the decree state has already disclaimed jurisdiction and there is no competing custody proceeding elsewhere.
- An order that merely “accepts” UCCJEA jurisdiction, without substantive custody or protective relief, is generally not an appealable order.

## Conclusion

The court upheld California’s authority under the UCCJEA to include custody and modification relief within a DVPA restraining order after Texas relinquished jurisdiction and California became the child’s home state, rejected a categorical requirement of inter-court communication on these facts, and dismissed an appeal taken from a standalone jurisdiction-acceptance order as nonappealable.


Keisha W. v. Marvin M., 229 Cal. App. 4th 581 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)