Brewer v. Carter

Citations: 218 Cal. App. 4th 1312; 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 853; 2013 WL 4417439; 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 659Docket: B244767

Court: California Court of Appeal; August 16, 2013; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A father, Barry Vincent Brewer, Jr., appealed a Los Angeles Superior Court order designating Illinois as a more convenient forum for resolving child custody disputes regarding his son, who was born on April 21, 2010. Brewer argued that the trial court failed to allow the parties to present evidence, as required by Family Code section 3427, prior to making the determination about the forum's convenience. The appellate court held that the trial court must provide an opportunity for evidence presentation before concluding that California is an inconvenient forum. Due to the absence of evidence in the record, the appellate court could not confirm that the trial court considered the statutory factors, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings.

The procedural history included Brewer's filing for joint custody after the child's mother, Kymar Carter, took the child to Illinois in June 2011 and did not return. After a series of procedural missteps, including rejected filings and a default judgment entered against Carter, she later attempted to set aside the default by claiming mistake and excusable neglect. The California court, after communicating with the Illinois court, determined that Illinois was the child's home state at the time of the custody proceedings and that California was not, as the child had not resided there for the required six months before Brewer's petition. Consequently, the court decided that the custody issues should be resolved in Illinois, leading to the appeal. The appellate court's reversal emphasizes the necessity of evidence presentation in forum determinations and the proper application of statutory guidelines.

On August 24, 2012, Brewer filed a motion for reconsideration in California regarding custody matters, which was denied by the California court on October 1, 2012, due to lack of new law or facts. The court acknowledged its prior jurisdiction over the custody case but chose not to exercise it, citing the pending proceedings in Illinois and the likelihood of relevant information being in Illinois, where the mother resided. The California court concluded that the Illinois court was better positioned to determine the child's best interests. Brewer appealed the order under specific legal provisions. 

The standard of review for a trial court's decision to stay custody proceedings is discretionary, only to be reversed for clear abuse of discretion. Jurisdiction for custody cases in California is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Under section 3402, California had jurisdiction as the child's home state within six months prior to Brewer's filing, despite the child's absence from the state for 72 days. Both California and Illinois have adopted similar UCCJEA provisions to prevent jurisdictional disputes and promote cooperation in custody matters, aiming to discourage custody controversies and facilitate enforcement of custody decisions.

Carter's filing of a custody action in Illinois triggered the UCCJEA, requiring the Illinois court to decline jurisdiction since an ongoing custody proceeding existed in another state that complied with UCCJEA standards. The UCCJEA promotes inter-court communication, allowing a California court to engage with another state's court regarding related proceedings, while ensuring parties can present their arguments before jurisdiction decisions are made. Any communication must be documented, excluding administrative matters, and parties must be informed and granted access to such records.

Brewer argued that the trial court's designation of California as an inconvenient forum constituted an abuse of discretion, as it did not allow the presentation of evidence as mandated by section 3427. Without evidence, the court could not effectively evaluate the statutory factors required. The UCCJEA aims to prevent wrongful child removal to create jurisdiction in a preferred forum. If jurisdiction arises from unjustifiable conduct by the petitioning party, the court must decline to exercise it unless certain conditions are met.

Section 3427 allows a California court to reject jurisdiction if it determines another state's court is a more suitable forum. The court is obliged to consider various factors, including the history of domestic violence, the child's residency duration outside California, logistical concerns for the parties involved, any agreements on jurisdiction, and the ability of each court to manage the case effectively. In this instance, the trial court independently raised the issue of inconvenient forum without a motion from either parent, failing to allow evidence submission related to the convenience of California versus Illinois. Consequently, the court's decision to stay the proceedings was deemed erroneous.

To assess whether California constitutes an inconvenient forum, the trial court must evaluate all relevant factors outlined in section 3427, subdivision (b). The court possesses broad discretion in assigning weight to these factors but is obligated to consider each applicable circumstance without omission. If the record is silent, it is presumed that the court fulfilled its duty to consider all statutory factors and made the necessary factual findings supported by substantial evidence. However, if the record indicates what the court actually did, these presumptions do not hold.

In this case, the trial court's sole express finding was the assumption that medical records likely exist in Illinois, but there was no evidence confirming their existence or necessity for the case. Consequently, without allowing the parties to present evidence on the forum's convenience and no record supporting California as inconvenient or Illinois as more suitable, the court cannot be presumed to have made the necessary factual findings under section 3427. The order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings, with appellant Barry Vincent Brewer, Jr. entitled to costs on appeal.