 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re A. C.6/28/2005
ndency petition alleging Mother and Father were out of the country and unable to arrange appropriate and adequate care for A. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (g)). The juvenile court detained A. in foster care and transferred the matter from its Northern division to its South Bay division, closer to Mother and Father's home in Tijuana.
The jurisdictional and dispositional hearing was held on February 20, 2004. Father was not present. Mother said he was home caring for their two-year-old daughter, who was ill. Agency dismissed the Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g) allegation and added a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b) allegation that Mother and Father were unable to provide the intensive medical treatment required for A.'s cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, and respiratory compensation . Mother submitted on the petition on the basis of Agency's reports. The court entered a true finding on the amended petition, declared A. a dependent, removed her from her parents' custody, and placed her in foster care. Agency detained A. with the D's.
On May 25, 2004, the court received the D's.' de facto parent application. On August 5 it granted the application. Father filed his notice of appeal on September 14 and Mother filed hers on September 30.
II. THE ACT
A. Introduction
Effective January 1, 2000, the Act replaced the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (the UCCJA). The UCCJA's purposes were "to '[avoid] jurisdictional competition and conflict, [promote] interstate cooperation, [litigate] custody where child and family have closest connections, [discourage] continuing conflict over custody, [deter] abductions and unilateral removals of children, [avoid] relitigation of another state's custody decisions, and [promote] exchange of information and other mutual assistance between courts of sister states.' [Citation.]" (In re C.T. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 101, 106.) The UCCJA's policy was "to limit, rather than proliferate, jurisdiction." (In re Marriage of Newsome (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 949, 957; accord, In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 313.) It "provide the exclusive method of determining subject matter jurisdiction in custody cases in California" and applied to juvenile dependency proceedings and international custody disputes. (Stephanie M., at p. 310.)
The Act "is the exclusive method of determining the proper forum in custody disputes involving other jurisdictions and governs juvenile dependency proceedings." (In re C.T., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at p. 106; §§ 3402, subd. (c), 3421, subd. (b).) It applies to international custody disputes (see In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 310); foreign countries are treated as states for the purpose of determining jurisdiction (§ 3405, subd. (a)). Cases interpreting the UCCJA may be instructive in deciding cases under the Act, except where the two statutory schemes vary. (E.g., In re C.T., supra, 100 Cal.App.4th at pp. 109, fn. 4, 111, fn. 9.)
We are not bound by the juvenile court's findings regarding subject matter jurisdiction, but rather "independently reweigh the jurisdictional facts." (In re Adoption of Zachariah K. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1034.) " ubject matter jurisdiction either exists or does not exist at the time the action is commenced" (Plas v. Superior Court (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1015, fn. 5, cited in Zachariah K., at p. 1035) and cannot be conferred by stipulation, consent, waiver, or estoppel (Plas, at pp. 1013-1014; In re Marriage of Ben-Yehoshua (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 259, 263).
The Act sets forth the prerequisites of jurisdiction relevant to this case in sections 3421 and 3424.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|