4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/05/19 - May 19, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/05/19

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 39m 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What does the court’s opening introduction cover and who are the parties appearing?

Unknown 12:03

Five over reveal for the Well District Division G okay. Good morning. Welcome to the Cruise Reynoso Courthouse. I'm Justice Delaney. To my right is Justice Scott and to my left is Judge Schwarm. We have uh four matters on calendar today. The first one will be heard by this panel. And then we'll have a brief recess for a panel change. The first case we'll hear this morning. Is Little versus Gouda. We step forward.

Tamah Guda 12:40

Good dumb. My name is Tamasagula.

Unknown 12:43

to uh you're just gonna go ahead and argue. There was no respondents brief and we don't respect uh we there's nobody here to respond. Um so please state your name and you have uh reserved fifteen minutes for your argument. You may proceed when you're ready.

Tamah Guda 12:55

My name is Tamah Guda, I'm the appellant and petitioner. Um I'm only appealing um regarding from may ninth, two thousand twenty five, the UCCGEA jurisdiction only, jurisdiction part only. Okay. May I uh may it please the court, my name is Samahiguda appellant appearing in pro pair. The cornerstone issues in this appeal are whether the Egyptian custody order was issued in substantial conformity with the UCCGEA and whether Egypt um could retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction where no party presently resides there. Under the undisputed facts, the answer to both uh questions is no. The material facts are undisputed. The minor child Jibril has never resided in Egypt for six consecutive months at any point in his life, and never established meaningful connections there concerning his education, healthcare, personal relationships, or daily life.

Tamah Guda 13:52

Jibril was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where both parents resided together as a family. He resided he received his medical care and vaccinations there, and his United States citizenship was issued through the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia. The Egyptian custody proceedings was commenced commenced on may second, twenty eighteen, when Jibril was approximately eleven months old, and after only a brief emergency presence in Egypt. Under family code section three four two one A one Home state jurisdiction generally requires that the child reside in the state for at least six consecutive months. Immediately before the commencement of the custody proceedings, excluding temporary absences. The disputed evidence including Attellant's UCCGEA declaration and the Egyptian official travel movement records establ established that Jibril had never resided in Egypt for six consecutives a month immediately preceding commencement of the Egyptian proceedings or at any other point in his life.

Tamah Guda 14:58

Further, the record failed to establish jurisdiction under three hundred and four two one A two because Egypt never became the centre of substantial evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships. According uh accordingly, the Egyptian custody order was not issued consistently with the with the jurisdictional standards required under UCCGEA. By contrast, it is undisputed that Jibril and Apelin have resided continuously in California since july twenty eighteen, approximately three and a half years before commencement of the California family proceeding in january twenty twenty two. California is the child's home state and the center of all substantial evidence concerning his care, education, health care, protection, and personal relationships.

Tamah Guda 15:47

Respondent does not reside in Egypt. By his own sworn admissions, he resides in Saudi Arabia and travels intermittently to Egypt. He excu executed declarations in Saudi Arabia, provided discord. with a Saudi Arabian mailing address and initiated custody proceedings in Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt. The Egyptian travel movement records likewise reflect only Ener May's visits to Egypt rather than residency there. This case concerns modification jurisdiction under Family Code Section three hundred four two three. Section three four four four four four two three authorizes California to modify a foreign custody determination where California has jurisdiction under Section three four four four four four two one.