Tazuk v. Bishop CA1/3

Filed 8/26/14 Tazuk v. Bishop CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

BRIAR TAZUK, Petitioner and Appellant, A140192 v. HOLLEY BISHOP, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 26-50053) Respondent.

Briar Tazuk appeals following the trial court’s stay and dismissal of this proceeding to establish paternity. Respondent Holley Bishop moved for the stay and dismissal on the basis that New York state is the most convenient forum to consider child custody and visitation issues. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise its jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum, and that Tazuk had no right to require the trial court to set forth its ruling in a statement of decision. Thus, we affirm. BACKGROUND Tazuk and Bishop became romantically involved in 2005, and, through in vitro fertilization, had a son in 2007. Except for a few months in 2009, Bishop and her son have lived in New York City. Tazuk has lived in Napa County since 2009. Prior to that he lived in San Francisco. In October 2009, in Napa County, Tazuk filed a petition to establish his parental relationship with the couple’s son and to determine child custody. Shortly thereafter, Bishop initiated child custody proceedings in New York. In February 2010, the Napa

1

Superior Court assumed jurisdiction over the issues of child custody and visitation, but reserved any determination of whether New York would be the more convenient forum for any later proceedings. This earlier dispute was resolved in a stipulation that awarded the parties joint legal custody of their son, with sole physical custody to Bishop subject to specified periods of visitation for Tazuk in 2011 and 2012. The parties were to reach a further agreement for visits in 2013 and thereafter. Bishop and their son continued to live in New York. When it appeared to Bishop that the parties would be unable to reach agreement concerning child visitation in 2013 and beyond, she filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Napa proceeding in favor of proceedings in New York on the ground that Napa was no longer a convenient forum. Tazuk opposed the motion. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court declined Tazuk’s request for a statement of decision, and determined that New York was the appropriate forum for consideration of custody and visitation issues. In a later minute order entitled “Statement of Decision,” the court stayed the Napa case and directed that it be dismissed upon confirmation that the custody and visitation issues were pending in a New York court. Tazuk’s objections to the “Statement of Decision” were overruled and his motion for a new trial was denied. His appeal is timely. DISCUSSION 1. California as an Inconvenient Forum The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, provided in Family Code sections 3400 et seq.,1 is the exclusive means in California to determine jurisdiction in child custody cases. (Pieri v. Superior Court (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 114, 118.) Under the act, a California court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction in child custody matters when it determines that another state is a more appropriate forum. (§ 3427, subd. (a).) In making such a determination, the court is to consider all relevant factors, including how long the child has resided outside California, the location of witnesses and the evidence