In order to change a custody and visitation order, a California family law judge must have subject matter jurisdiction over the children involved. Otherwise, whatever orders are made will be null and void. That was the verdict from the California Court of Appeal in San Diego, which on Friday reversed a trial judge for making changes to a custody order originally issued by a North Carolina Judge.
In this case, entitled Marriage of Kent, a North Carolina judge entered a custody and visitation order in 2017. In 2018, the mother (“Molly”) opened up a case in California and filed a motion to change part of that order. At that time, Molly lived in California with the parties’ two children, now ages 13 and 11. But the father still lived in North Carolina.
The California judge granted part of the motion but denied other parts of it. In other words, some of the custody and visitation order was changed.
Mother appealed, arguing, as all people who appeal do, that the trial judge should have ruled differently on the motion. But in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Joan Irion, the appeals panel did not get into the custody dispute. After considering the statutory framework of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement (UCCJEA) act, it ruled that because North Carolina had child custody subject matter jurisdiction when it made its 2017 orders, and because the father remained in that state, only North Carolina could change the orders – although California could take action to enforce the orders—unless the North Carolina judge determined that California would be a more convenient forum to hear the case and California had subject matter jurisdiction to make the initial custody orders.
In order for all of this to happen, based on California Family Code section 3429, the California judge would have had to have discussed the matter with the North Carolina judge and gotten the North Carolina judge to determine that California was the more appropriate state.
Because the UCCJEA is based on subject matter jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, it did not matter that the parties had stipulated at the trial level, “that California has UCCJEA” jurisdiction, because it did not. A party or parties cannot stipulate to subject matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, the father argued that the California judge’s failure to check in with the North Carolina judge was “harmless error”, because had that conversation taken place, the North Carolina judge would have determined that California was a more appropriate state to hear the dispute. But the justices here in California said that because the matter involved subject matter jurisdiction, the doctrine of harmless error did not apply.
The Kent case was certified for publication, meaning it is binding precedent on all trial judges throughout the state. Joining Justice Irion in her opinion, were Acting Presiding Justice Patricia Benke and Justice Patricia Guerrero.
Our Attorneys Meet Our Attorneys
We Break Up Marriages
Our team leads the way with their extensive legal knowledge and a genuine understanding of the unique challenges that family law issues can present. Learn how our decades of experience and dedicated legal strategy set us apart.
Five-Star Client Reviews
In Their Own Words
At Andy Cook Law, we prioritize crafting the right strategy for your case, and it makes all difference. Read some of our client testimonials below.
-
“My ex was doing everything possible to keep me from visiting my daughter. Andy stuck by me and we were able get 50/50 custody and end all of the nonsense. Andy can get it done if you need the help.”- Former Client
-
“Mr. Cook's high level of knowledge and experience was clear from the start. His focus was always on fairly resolving issues and disputes, never allowing potential emotional pitfalls to wreck the work that had to be done.”- Former Client
-
“Andy was on the ball, quick, and got the results I needed. Trust me, he is an excellent attorney and he really cleaned up a mess that my previous attorney made. Mr. Cook got me what my other attorney could not get.”- Former Client
-
“Andy maintained professionalism, as well as assisted in providing recommendations which saved me time and money without having to litigate a very contentious divorce.”- Former Client
-
“Presented the best options for us to help the divorce go smoothly - made time to call/email when new options were available to us. Engaging and clear about the process.”- Former Client
-
“Attorney Andy Cook and his team of professionals were the best. With Andy in my corner, I felt like a winner. Always prepared and motivated, he removed a lot of my worries. A true General in the battlefield of litigation.”- Rod B.
-
“I hired him to take care of my divorce and he and his team was very thorough during the whole process.”- Former Client
-
“Mr. Cook fought for us with the tenacity and resourcefulness we’d hoped for. His work ethic and staff are truly professional, and we are thankful to have him on our team! They are the best of the best!”- Matthew S.