Filed 8/16/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BIANKA M., a Minor, etc., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) S233757 ) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ) Ct.App. 2/3 B267454 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ) ) Respondent; ) Los Angeles County ) Super. Ct. No. BF052072 GLADYS M., ) ) Real Party in Interest. ) ____________________________________) At the age of 10, petitioner Bianka M., a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States unaccompanied and without prior authorization. After a brief detention by federal authorities, she was reunited with her mother, who had left Honduras for the United States many years before. In a family court action naming her mother as the respondent, Bianka asked for an order placing her in her mother’s sole custody. She also asked the court to issue findings that would enable her to seek “special immigrant juvenile” status under federal immigration law—a classification that permits immigrant children who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both parents to apply for lawful permanent residence while remaining in the United States. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); Code Civ. Proc., § 155.) She alleges that her father, who resides in Honduras, has 1 abandoned her and that it is not in her interest to return to her home country. Although she has notified her father of the action, he has taken no steps to participate. The superior court denied Bianka’s requests. The court concluded it could not issue either a custody order or findings relevant to special immigrant juvenile status unless Bianka first established a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over her father and joined him as a party to the action. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. We granted review to determine whether the superior court properly required the child’s nonresident, noncustodial parent to be joined as a party in her parentage action seeking special immigrant juvenile findings. We also consider whether, as certain language in the Court of Appeal’s opinion might suggest, the child’s perceived immigration-related motivations for filing the action have any bearing on whether the action may proceed. Our answer to both questions is no. Provided that the absent parent has received adequate notice, the action may proceed even if the parent is beyond the personal jurisdiction of the court and cannot be joined as a party. The action may also proceed regardless of whether the court believes it was filed primarily for the purpose of obtaining the protections from abuse, neglect, or abandonment that federal immigration law provides. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings. I. A. The facts are taken from Bianka’s petition and supporting documentation. Bianka was born in 2002 in Honduras to Gladys M. In 2005, Gladys moved to the United States in search of better employment opportunities, leaving Bianka in the care of an older daughter. Despite the physical distance between them, Bianka 2 and Gladys maintained a close relationship. Gladys frequently called to check on Bianka’s well-being and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals