In re M.M.

Mari M. (mother) appeals from the order of the juvenile court that her son M.M., bom June 2013 (minor), was a child described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a). Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it (i) assumed permanent jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) (UCCJEA), after officials and a supreme court judge from minor’s “home state” of Japan unambiguously and repeatedly stated it was inappropriate under their legal system for a Japanese court to communicate with the juvenile court regarding this case; (ii) failed to advise her that she could commence a separate custody action in Japan; and (iii) found minor a dependent under subdivision (a) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, rather than under subdivision (b) of that statute. Affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2014, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (agency) received a report of severe domestic violence between mother and Rogers M., minor’s father (father), which had taken place on December 2, 2014, and which had been witnessed by minor. The domestic violence…