## Facts

- Patricia Ann Miller and Harry Maurice Miller divorced in Australia in 1967; an Australian court awarded Patricia custody of their two minor children, granted Harry visitation, and restricted removal of the children from Australia without court permission.
- The parties later entered agreements affecting custody and schooling, and both remarried; the children continued living primarily in Australia, including periods of substantial custody with Harry.
- In March 1976, after a contested custody hearing in Australia, an Australian court awarded custody to Harry, granted Patricia specified rights, and provided that if Patricia left the area Harry would have sole custody.
- Later in 1976, Patricia took the children to California without Harry’s consent.
- Harry sought enforcement in California of the Australian custody order.
- On December 10, 1976, the Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered Patricia to deliver custody of the children to Harry pursuant to the Australian decree.
- Patricia petitioned the California Supreme Court for a writ of mandate to vacate the enforcement order; the court stayed enforcement pending decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a California court should recognize and enforce an Australian custody decree under principles of comity when a parent unilaterally removes the children to California.
2. Whether, and to what extent, a California court must conduct an independent best-interests inquiry before enforcing a foreign custody determination.
3. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by enforcing the Australian custody order rather than allowing a de novo custody proceeding in California.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandate and left in place the superior court order requiring Patricia to deliver custody to Harry under the Australian decree.
- The court held that comity supported recognition and enforcement of the Australian custody determination because the Australian court had exercised ongoing jurisdiction over the family and had recently held contested proceedings.
- The court concluded the superior court acted within its discretion in enforcing the foreign custody order without conducting a plenary, new custody trial in California on the record presented.
- A dissent would have required a more searching contemporary inquiry into the children’s welfare in California before enforcing the foreign decree.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign-country custody judgments are not entitled to full faith and credit, but California courts may recognize and enforce them as a matter of comity when the foreign court had jurisdiction and provided fundamentally fair proceedings.
- Comity in custody matters is discretionary, but is generally appropriate when the foreign forum has the closest and most established connection to the children and has actively supervised custody through ongoing proceedings.
- A California court retains responsibility to consider the children’s welfare, but unilateral removal of children into California does not, by itself, justify relitigation of custody; absent a substantial change in circumstances, enforcement of the existing foreign decree may be proper.
- California courts may consider policies against forum shopping and child abduction when deciding whether to enforce a foreign custody order.
- Mandamus relief is unavailable where the petitioner seeks de facto de novo review of a trial court’s discretionary decision to enforce a foreign custody decree.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an Australian custody decree under comity, holding that California need not reopen custody simply because a parent brought the children into the state, particularly where the foreign court had longstanding jurisdiction, recently heard the dispute, and no substantial changed circumstances were shown.


Miller v. Superior Court, 22 Cal. 3d 923 (Cal. 1978)