Ocegueda v. PerreiraAnnotate this Case
In this case of first impression, the issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review was whether California was the home state of a child who was born in Hawaii, remained in Hawaii for six weeks with his mother, then traveled to California with his mother, where, within 24 hours of his arrival, custody proceedings were commenced by his father in a California court. The answer turned on whether the term "lived," as it was used in the statute, meant simple physical presence in a state or, as father insisted, required an intent to remain in that state. The trial court determined that mother, who lived and was employed in California prior to the child's birth, went to Hawaii to give birth but intended to return to California. The court thus concluded that mother and the child "lived" in California, and their time in Hawaii was merely a temporary absence from California. The Court of Appeal disagreed: the child lived in Hawaii by virtue of the child's presence in Hawaii for the six weeks following his birth, leaving the state and traveling to California only 24 hours before father initiated these proceedings. Furthermore, the Court concluded this fleeting presence in California prior to commencement of these proceedings did not alter the conclusion the child lived in Hawaii. Because the child was born in Hawaii and lived in Hawaii with his mother following his birth, Hawaii was the child's home state.