Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
C.B. appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition order concerning her daughter, A.E., including the decision bypassing C.B.’s reunification services. She sought a conditional reversal so the court could conduct the analysis required by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services agreed that remand was necessary. The case arose in Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. 25JD028991, and was decided by the Sixth Appellate District on October 26, 2026.
The Department obtained a protective custody warrant for four-year-old A.E. in October 2025. Its supporting declaration stated that she had lived with a Nevada relative for several years until C.B. brought her to California shortly before the dependency began. The Department’s section 300 petition alleged failure to protect A.E. and abuse of a sibling; an amended petition later added allegations against presumed father J.E. After a contested January 2026 hearing, the juvenile court found the amended allegations true, bypassed C.B.’s reunification services, and ordered services for J.E. C.B. timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal accepted the Department’s concession because nothing in the record established home state jurisdiction in California. A.E. had lived in California for only a short period, with the Department reporting two weeks and C.B. testifying to almost two months, rather than the required six consecutive months. The court also could not conclude that A.E. had no home state: her recent absence from Nevada did not eliminate the possibility that Nevada remained her home state, because a temporary absence does not defeat that determination. No finding or inquiry addressed whether her absence was temporary or permanent.
The opinion distinguished emergency authority from authority to decide the dependency’s merits. The juvenile court could initially detain A.E. under temporary emergency jurisdiction, but it could not address the petition’s merits until it properly asserted nonemergency jurisdiction. Although some UCCJEA procedural failures may be harmless, the missing inquiry and findings prevented that conclusion here. It was reasonably possible that Nevada was A.E.’s home state, and the appellate court would not presume Nevada would cede jurisdiction. The order was therefore conditionally reversed. On remand, the juvenile court must determine whether Family Code section 3421, subdivision (a), permits jurisdiction; if so, the prior order is reinstated, and if not, it must proceed under the UCCJEA and vacate that order.
Key Takeaways
- A child’s presence and emergency circumstances can support an initial detention without authorizing a California court to decide the dependency petition’s merits.
- The short and conflicting estimates of A.E.’s time in California did not satisfy the six-consecutive-month home state standard.
- The juvenile court must examine whether A.E.’s departure from Nevada was temporary before treating Nevada as unavailable as her home state.
- The appellate court declined to presume that Nevada would cede jurisdiction, making the UCCJEA error impossible to dismiss as harmless on this record.
- The remand preserves two outcomes: reinstatement if nonemergency jurisdiction is proper, or vacatur and compliance with the UCCJEA if it is not.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the juvenile court’s conceded emergency power to protect A.E. from the distinct statutory authority needed for its jurisdiction and disposition rulings. It also explains why a recent move to California does not, by itself, resolve home state jurisdiction when the child previously spent several years in another state.
The conditional disposition leaves the underlying dependency findings and services decisions unresolved rather than finally adjudicating them. Their continued effect depends on the remand court’s jurisdictional determination. The opinion also declined to rely on forfeiture because neither party raised it, and it did not decide that Nevada definitely retained jurisdiction or would refuse to cede jurisdiction to California.