California Codes

Cal. Family Code § 3422 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Except as otherwise provided in Section 3424, a court of this state that has made a child custody determination consistent with Section 3421 or 3423 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until either of the following occurs:

(1)A court of this state determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

(2)A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.

(b)A court of this state that has made a child custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under Section 3421.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: In Re Interests A.A.-F., 444 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Interests A.A.-F., 444 P.3d 938 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 4× “23-37,202(a)(1) ( UCCJEA 202 ); see also Cal. Fam. Code § 3422 (a)(1). Second, a California court or a court of another state, such as Kansas, could determine the children and their parents no longer reside in California.”

Sonoma Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. Heather B. (In re C.W.), 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). “One exception is if a court of any state determines that neither the child nor his parents presently reside in California (Fam. Code, § 3422, subd. (a)(2) ), but that exception does not apply here because Heather resides in California.”

TAYLOR M. v. Superior Court, 130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 502 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “” (Fam. Code, § 3422, subd. (a).) Indeed, the detention order was made before the *110 Texas court took any action whatsoever.”

In Re Marriage of Nurie, 176 Cal. App. 4th 478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “Basically, subject to exceptions not applicable here [citations], once the court of an appropriate state (Fam. Code, § 3421, subd.”

Paillier v. Pence, 144 Cal. App. 4th 461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Basically, subject to exceptions not applicable here (Fam. Code, §§ 3422, subd. (a)(l)-(2), 3423, subds.”

Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “§ 25-1032(A); Cal. Fam.Code § 3422(a) (West). Unless a statutory exception applies, courts in other states are prohibited from modifying an initial child custody order entered by a court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”

Levy v. Blum, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8580 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “2d 263 ] [stating general rule that once jurisdiction is acquired in a proceeding where child support is in issue, superior court jurisdiction over child support continues]; Fam. Code, § 3422 [except in certain circumstances, a court that has made a child custody determination…”

Marriage of Schroeder v. Schroeder, 658 N.W.2d 909 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “203(2); Cal. Fam. Code § 3422 . It is undisputed that father is still a resident of California.”

In Re Marriage of Akula, 935 N.E.2d 1070 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “3d at 220 , quoting Cal. Fam. Code §3422 (a)(2). These aspects of Nurie merely restate the requirements of section 202(a)(2) of the UCCJEA, but offer no additional guidance on the issue of whether the Indian family court’s finding substantially conformed to those requirements.”

Mann v. Mann, 29 Neb. Ct. App. 548 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “California has a similar statute found at Cal. Fam. Code § 3422 (Deering 2020). Again, neither party disputes that the California court had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over this matter.”

In re: D.A.Y., 831 S.E.2d 854 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 50A-202, Official Comment (2017); see also Cal. Fam. Code § 3422 (a) (2017). Presuming arguendo the court in California lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when Respondent temporarily relocated from *859 California to Nevada, this occurrence did not confer jurisdiction…”

Bianka M. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty., 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 849 (Cal. Ct. App. 2nd 2016). “) " 'The UCCJEA takes a strict "first in time" approach to jurisdiction. Basically, subject to exceptions not applicable here [citations], once the court of an appropriate state (Fam.”

Show all 22 citing cases →

— Cal. Family Code § 3422(a) — 2 cases

Emert v. Schuck (S.D. Cal. 2024).

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.