In Re Marriage of Richardson

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 391·179 Cal. App. 4th 1240
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 2009B214768California769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Appellant Tomoko Richardson appeals from the child support portion of a default judgment in a divorce proceeding initiated by respondent Robert Richardson. We hold that the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to award child support for the parties’ minor child because the child’s home state is Japan. We reverse the child support portion of the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Appellant and respondent married in 2003; judgment of the dissolution of their marriage was entered in 2009. The parties’ child was bom in 2005 and has resided with appellant in Japan since 2007. The trial court found it lacked jurisdiction to award custody or child support because the child’s home state was Japan. Appellant timely appeals from the child support portion of the judgment, contending the trial court’s jurisdictional determination was in error. She does not challenge the custody decision.

DISCUSSION

Superior courts have exclusive jurisdiction over child support matters. (Fam. Code, §§ 200, 2010, subd. (c).) In its order for child support the trial court found: “The [appellant] and the minor child have been residing in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.