Keisha W. v. Marvin M.

In January 2011, a Texas court issued Keisha W. (plaintiff) and Marvin M. (defendant) joint custody of their child. Keisha then moved with the child to California because of Marvin’s abuse. In May 2012, Marvin picked up the child from day care pursuant to his visitation rights. Marvin kept the child longer than permitted. Keisha filed an abduction charge and a restraining order against Marvin in a California superior court. Law enforcement found Marvin and the child in Nevada. The court issued the restraining order, which granted Keisha physical custody of the child and required that Marvin immediately return the child. The court explained that it had jurisdiction over the child’s custody arrangement because Texas no longer had jurisdiction. Marvin appealed. Marvin argued that California did not have jurisdiction over custody matters under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (the custody act). In November 2012, Keisha petitioned the California superior court for permanent physical custody and supervised visitation with Marvin. The court held a conference call to discuss the issue of jurisdiction with judges from Texas and Nevada. Texas declined jurisdiction. Nevada neither accepted nor declined jurisdiction. The California superior court accepted jurisdiction and scheduled a hearing to determine custody. Marvin appealed the restraining order and the acceptance of jurisdiction. Marvin argued that the California superior court should have declined jurisdiction under § 3428 of the custody act because Keisha had improperly brought the child to California. The California Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals and reviewed the case.