Family Law Tentative Rulings
Judge Paul J. Lozada
The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
PLEASE NOTE: If argument is requested in this matter you may appear in person or remotely via Zoom. To appear via Zoom please see the Zoom information below.
To join online,
- https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1613120396
- Enter the Meeting ID: 161 312 0396
- Password: 219644
To join Zoom by phone,
- Please dial 1 669 254 5252 shortly before the start time of your scheduled hearing
- Enter the Meeting ID: 161 312 0396 Password: 219644
Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
SPECIALLY ISSUED TENTATIVE RULING FOR 04/15/25 HEARINGS
There will be no requests for oral argument. Any and all arguments regarding the tentative ruling will be heard on Wednesday, May 7th at the special set hearing.
1. 25FL00290 & 25FL00488
Issues
25FL00290: Motion to Quash DVPA Petition
25FL00488: Petition for DVPA Protection, Domestic Violence Protection Act
After reviewing all pleadings filed by the parties, relevant to the Motion to Quash for Want of Personal Jurisdiction filed by the Restrained Party, who appears specially contesting jurisdiction, the Court makes the following findings.
Personal Jurisdiction Over Restrained Party
California lacks personal jurisdiction over the Restrained Party in regard to the Protected Party’s request for protective orders enjoining the Restrained Party filed on February 10, 2025. The court agrees with the analysis and argument of the Protected Party that there exists, no substantial, continuous and systemic contacts with this state by the Restrained Party. International Shoe Co. v, State of Washington (1945) 326 US 310, 316.
This is however not the end of the analysis for this court. The Protected party also requested in her Petition for DVPA Protection Orders, certain orders protecting Minor Child “A” and has also filed her own UCCJEA Petition to establish “Original Jurisdiction over Child “A”.
Original UCCJEA Jurisdiction over Child “A”.
There currently exists NO child custody orders for Child “A” in either New York or California for Child “A”. Original UCCJEA Jurisdiction in this matter is currently contested with Sister-State New York. The Restrained Party commenced UCCJEA Proceedings in New York on January 7, 2025, for a child under 6-months old at the time of that filing. Protected Party disputes this issue, filing her own Petition to Establish UCCJEA jurisdiction on March 7, 2025, where the child was not present in the state of California for 6-months. In regard to Original Jurisdiction for Child “A”, the New York Petition is “First in Time” and appears dispositive on this issue, subject to the determination of this court exerting Emergency Jurisdiction discussed infra.
Emergency Jurisdiction Request to Protect the Child
“Even when Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) jurisdiction in a child custody matter rests with another state or country, a California court may exercise temporary jurisdiction if the child is present in California and the exercise of such jurisdiction is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse. In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin & Sanchez (App. 4 Dist. 2011) 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 227, 191 Cal.App.4th 1015, rehearing denied. Here, Child “A” is currently “present” in the state of California. To determine “Emergency Jurisdiction” this court is required to determine this issue based on the merits of the case. “The finding of an “emergency,” as would support temporary emergency jurisdiction in California under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), should only be made after an evidentiary hearing. In re Cristian I. (App. 2 Dist. 2014) 169 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, 224 Cal.App.4th 1088. “Determination of whether a court has temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) in a custody matter should not be made in a rush to judgment but, rather, after a full and fair evidentiary hearing; thus, mere allegations are insufficient to invoke emergency jurisdiction. In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin & Sanchez (App. 4 Dist. 2011) 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 227, 191 Cal.App.4th 1015, rehearing denied. This court currently has exerted Emergency Jurisdiction pursuant to CFC section 3424, subject to an evidentiary hearing on the merits. “[The] (f)act that a court presented with a child custody dispute subject to a sister state custody order and invoking the court's emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) must hold an evidentiary hearing does not deprive it pre-hearing of jurisdiction to detain the child; under such circumstances, it is proper for the court to issue an interim custody order to protect the child pending a hearing”. In re C.T. (App. 4 Dist. 2002) 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 897, 100 Cal.App.4th 101.
Accordingly, this court sets this matter for Evidentiary Hearing on May 7, 2025, at 1:30 pm, in department 22, to determine UCCJEA Jurisdiction, if any.
The hearings set in this matter for April 15, 2025, at 1:30pm are hereby vacated and reset as indicated supra. Any argument regarding the Motion to Quash can be made at this time. No further pleadings on the Motion to Quash shall be considered.
It is SO ORDERED.