(a)A court of this state may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this part.
(b)The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.
(c)Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.
(d)Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), a record must be made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.
(e)For the purposes of this section, “record” means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium
or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case:
In Re Interests A.A.-F., 444 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2019).
In Re Interests A.A.-F., 444 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2019).
· cites it 3× “23-37,110(a) ( UCCJEA 110 ); Cal. Fam. Code § 3410 (a). Parties may be allowed to participate in the communication and, if they are not included in the communication, must be allowed to present facts and argument regarding jurisdiction before a decision.”
Paillier v. Pence, 144 Cal. App. 4th 461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Although it could be argued that the trial court should have communicated with the French appellate court rather than the French trial court (Fam. Code, § 3410), appellants waived this argument by failing to raise it below.”
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“§ 25-1010 (setting forth procedure for communication between courts); Cal. Fam.Code §§ 3410, 3412, 3427 (West).”
In re Mason T. CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “(Fam. Code, § 3410, subd. (c).) She contends the court failed to obtain the “promised written response from the Florida court declining jurisdiction.”
in the Interest of J.P. & A. P., Child. (Tex. App. 2020).
“See Cal. Fam. Code § 3410 (2020). Agreeing that the proceedings were “flawed,” the appellate court nonetheless held that they had “substantially complied with the essential procedural requirements of the UCCJEA and [had] fully satisfied the central goals of the act.”
In re Adoption Bill, 123 N.E.3d 800 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019).
“See Cal. Fam. Code § 3410 ( § 110 of uniform act, as enacted in California).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.