S.M.
S.M. v. E.P.
Opinion
lead Opinion
Aaron, J.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant S.M. and respondent E.P. are the parents of a toddler, C.M. S.M. and E.P. met in San Diego and lived together in San Diego, on and off, for approximately five years before C.M. was bom. In 2008, around the time E.P. became pregnant with C.M., the couple began having difficulties, and E.P. eventually returned to her home state of Iowa to give birth. She returned to San Diego a few months later with C.M. so that she and S.M. could work on their relationship.
Approximately eight months after C.M. was bom, S.M. filed a paternity and custody action in California. Approximately two weeks later, E.P. filed a motion to quash service of summons in the California action and sought a restraining order against S.M. E.P. also filed a custody and support action in Iowa. 1
The trial court issued a minute order in which the court stated that it would decline to exercise jurisdiction over the paternity and custody matter, concluding that “Iowa is the proper [s]tate of jurisdiction.” The court also issued *1252 a separate restraining order that prohibited S.M. from coming within 100 yards of E.P. for a period of six months.