Tag: Home State Jurisdiction

By Sally Ann Vazquez-Castellanos, Esq.

Published on July 15, 2025. Revised July 16, 2025.

This post is inspired by the ACLU’s Ana story. If you would like to learn more about Ana, I invite you to visit my earlier post published today on It’s Personal. For additional insight, please visit Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection Law, where I discuss emerging technologies that may provide insight for family law and immigration practitioners.

Please visit the ACLU online and learn more about all of the important stories impacting immigrants across the United States.

I have changed some important details to reflect California law. Please be sure to consult a qualified immigration or family law attorney if you need assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to learn about Ana.

Introduction

What begins as a family law dispute quickly spirals into a multi-systemic threat—especially for immigrant parents navigating high-conflict custody, relocation, and criminal allegations. In today’s climate of aggressive immigration enforcement, this convergence of state custody law, federal criminal scrutiny, and civil rights breakdown has never been more dangerous.

Ana’s Story: A Mother’s Flight for Safety, and the System That Turns Against Her

Ana, a Honduran national and mother of a U.S. citizen child, who resides in California and relocates to New York.

Ana is embroiled in a domestic violence-fueled custody battle that implicates jurisdiction in two states.

Resolving the jurisdiction issues means that judges from both states must determine which state has jurisdiction over the custody matter. Having judicial authority to determine initial custody orders will set the stage for any parent who is seeking to either maintain residency in California, or to seek residency in a new state. It gets even more complicated in the context of an international move away case. Ana’s goal would have been to establish initial custody orders in New York.

Given the fact that Ana is now in federal detention in New York, Ana’s concerns now involve an extremely serious immigration issue that invariably impacts her family law case and ultimately the custody of her child.

Ana faced allegations of emotional instability and coercive control from her ex-partner, who filed an emergency motion under California Penal Code § 278.5, there are obvious allegations involving parental kidnapping. Ana may have believed that she had the right to take her child to New York. From a judge’s point of view, removal is serious because it does involve allegations of parental kidnapping. It’s important to understand that in the Florida case, Ana simply took her child for Ice Cream. Unfortunately, Ana may have violated orders that require supervised visitations.

In both scenarios, Ana’s decision triggers criminal proceedings when the other parent contacts law enforcement. It’s that simple and extremely dangerous. While we would all like to believe parents (and family members or other interested parties) are operating with clean hands, that is usually not the case.

This signals the importance of trauma informed judicial training programs across the nation to recognize the subtleties in behavior.

Sadly, once Ana is arrested and detained she is placed in a situation that could escalate into something far worse. You must understand that if Ana is removed from the country without due process, Ana’s problems have turned into a nightmare.

So parents (and others) must recognize the seriousness of mere accusations. Unfortunately, what follows is worse than anticipated. Ana is arrested, transferred into ICE custody, and she is detained at a facility, where she purportedly endures sexual abuse, solitary confinement, denial of counsel, medical neglect, and retaliation. Ana is cut off from her child and barred from participating in custody proceedings, while her mental and physical health deteriorates.

What happens inside of a federal detention facility in the United States?

What would happen if Ana is removed from the United States?

How Jurisdiction Collapsed: UCCJEA and the Home State Crisis

We’ve discussed that Ana’s story is inspired from a published story from the ACLU. How many more Ana’s are out there?

This is really important for the Family Law bar to consider throughout the nation as the immigration crisis continues.

Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), California maintains exclusive jurisdiction over Ana’s custody matter. The purpose of the UCCJEA is to prevent “forum shopping” and ensure that custody disputes are resolved in the child’s home state—defined as the state where the child lived for the six months prior to the proceeding.

But in Ana’s case, her problems become much more complicated than the jurisdictional hearing that normally takes place and may further implicate parental kidnapping statutes. Ana’s story has now turned into a criminal matter and could potentially open the door for ICE. Her ex-partner filed conflicting petitions in New York, while law enforcement in California treated her movement as custodial interference. Without coordination between states—or recognition of the trauma she was fleeing—Ana’s legal protections under UCCJEA crumble. We are also dealing with a far worse situation for Ana who is in detention.

Criminalization and Deportation: When Family Law Triggers Federal Enforcement

California’s § 278.5 criminal custodial interference statute is often invoked when a parent violates a custody order. But for non-citizen parents, even a minor accusation can escalate into immigration consequences.

✅ Chat Practice Pointer: After a local arrest, ICE may issue a detainer—also known as a “civil immigration hold request”—which asks local law enforcement to continue custody beyond the scheduled release date to allow federal agents to assume control. Please note that our fact pattern discusses a removal to New York from California.

Source: ChatGPT

In Ana’s case, that transfer resulted in her being placed into ICE custody, despite a pending family law case.

What Happened at Baker: A Civil Rights Catastrophe

According to a civil rights complaint submitted by the ACLU of Florida and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, Ana was subjected to multiple violations of the National Detention Standards (2019) and U.S. constitutional protections:

Solitary confinement for a language misunderstanding. Physical restraint while partially undressed and mocked by officers. Denied access to her family law attorney and court hearings. The alleged falsification of medical records and retaliatory conditions. Obstruction of access to her custody file and legal documents. So you can see some of the potential risks to federal detention when there is a pending custody matter.

Ana’s detention became a case study in how immigration enforcement mechanisms—especially when outsourced to private or county facilities—can override due process and expose vulnerable women to institutional abuse.

The Broader Political Context: July 2025 – Deportation Escalation

As of July 15, 2025, the Trump administration has formally announced plans to accelerate the deportation of immigrants, including those with pending protections.

According to Democracy Now!, the administration is moving forward with transfers to third countries—without full judicial review or due process. These policies raise an urgent warning for family law and immigration attorneys:

“The infrastructure is in place to expedite detention, restrict counsel access, and process removals before protective proceedings are complete—including family court hearings.”

Quote: ChatGPT

Ana’s experience foreshadows exactly what civil liberties groups are now sounding the alarm about: immigration enforcement as a tool of retaliation, silence, and systemic isolation.

Chat Recommendations for Family Law Attorneys:

Of course, if you disagree with my chat, you do have a right to your opinion but just remember to express that opinion in a respectful and constructive manner—especially in the digital space.

Please feel free to contact me to provide constructive feedback that would benefit Ana or those like her. I will do my best to update that information.

Assert UCCJEA home state jurisdiction immediately, especially in relocation cases.

Challenge § 278.5 filings that are retaliatory or procedurally defective.

Prepare declarations and motions to prevent ICE interference in family court custody orders.

Demand trauma-informed custody evaluations to counteract false mental health narratives.

Chat suggestions for Immigration Attorneys:

Investigate whether custody allegations are driving ICE interest.

File to stay removals where constitutional and parental rights are at risk.

Invoke ICE Directive 11064.3 (July 2022), also known as the Parental Interest Directive, which mandates that detained parents be allowed to participate in custody proceedings.

Due Process Must Be Respected

Ana’s case is not merely tragic—it is instructive. It shows how quickly family law can become criminal law, and how that can lead to immigration enforcement without meaningful judicial review.

The courts are meant to prioritize the best interest of the child, yet without access to hearings, legal representation, or trauma-informed review, parents are being removed from the equation entirely. Please also consider that parents are also being held to account for their children’s behavior.

Attorneys must work across practice areas—and across jurisdictions—to ensure that parents like Ana are not lost to bureaucratic indifference or something far worse—political expedience.

Legal References

California Penal Code § 278.5

Custodial interference, which is not expressly defined in California Family Code § 3020, is addressed in Penal Code Section 278.5, which criminalizes the act of taking, enticing, keeping, withholding or concealing a child with the intent to deprive a lawful custodian of their right to custody or visitation.

California Attorney and Shareholder at Los Angeles-based family law firm Castellanos & Associates, APLC. Focuses on legal issues at the intersection of children’s privacy, global data protection, and the impact of media and technology on families.

SPECIAL COPYRIGHT, NEURAL PRIVACY, HUMAN DIGNITY, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND DATA PROTECTION NOTICE

© 2025 Sally Castellanos. All Rights Reserved.

Neural Privacy and Cognitive Liberty

The entirety of this platform—including all authored content, prompts, symbolic and narrative structures, cognitive-emotional expressions, and legal commentary—is the original cognitive intellectual property of Sally Vazquez-Castellanos. (aka Sally Vazquez). Generative AI such as ChatGPT and/or Grok is used. This work reflects lived experience, legal reasoning, narrative voice, and original authorship, and is protected under:

United States Law

Title 17, United States Code (Copyright Act) – Protecting human-authored creative works from unauthorized reproduction, ingestion, or simulation; 

U.S. Constitution

First Amendment – Freedom of speech, press, thought, and authorship; 

Fourth Amendment – Right to be free from surveillance and data seizure; 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Due process, privacy, and equal protection; 

Civil Rights Acts of 1871 and 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 1983; Title VI and VII) – Protecting against discriminatory, retaliatory, or state-sponsored violations of fundamental rights; 

California Constitution, Art. I, § 1 – Right to Privacy; 

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / Privacy Rights Act (CPRA); 

Federal Trade Commission Act § 5 – Prohibiting unfair or deceptive surveillance, profiling, and AI data practices; 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) – Addressing technological abuse, harassment, and coercive control; 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) – Protecting against biometric and digital trafficking, stalking, and data-enabled exploitation.

International Law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Arts. 3, 5, 12, 19; 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 7, 17, 19, 26; 

Geneva Conventions, esp. Common Article 3 and Protocol I, Article 75 – Protecting civilians from psychological coercion, degrading treatment, and involuntary experimentation; 

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Protecting biometric, behavioral, and emotional data; 

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights – Opposing non-consensual experimentation; 

CEDAW – Protecting women from technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation.

CEDAW and Technology-Facilitated Violence, Coercion, and Exploitation

CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a binding international treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Often referred to as the international bill of rights for women, CEDAW obligates state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in all areas of life, including political, social, economic, and cultural spheres.

While CEDAW does not specifically mention digital or AI technologies (as it predates their widespread use), its principles are increasingly interpreted to cover technology-facilitated harms, particularly under:

Article 1, which defines discrimination broadly, encompassing any distinction or restriction that impairs the recognition or exercise of women’s rights; Article 2, which mandates legal protections and effective measures against all forms of discrimination; General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) and No. 35 (2017), which expand the understanding of gender-based violence to include psychological, economic, and digital forms of abuse.

Application to Technology

Under these principles, technology-facilitated violence, coercion, and exploitation includes:

Online harassment, stalking, and cyberbullying of women; Non-consensual distribution or creation of intimate images (e.g., deepfakes); Algorithmic bias or discriminatory profiling that disproportionately harms women; AI-enabled surveillance targeting women, particularly activists, journalists, or survivors; Reproductive surveillance or coercive control via health-tracking or biometric data systems; Use of data profiling to facilitate trafficking or gendered exploitation.

CEDAW obligates states to regulate technology companies, provide remedies to victims, and ensure that evolving technologies do not reinforce or perpetuate systemic gender-based violence or discrimination.

FAIR USE, NEWS REPORTING, AND OPINION: CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE

Pursuant to current U.S. Copyright Office guidance (2024–2025):

Only human-authored content qualifies for copyright protection. Works created solely by AI or LLM systems are not protectable unless there is meaningful human contribution and control. Fair use does not authorize wholesale ingestion of copyrighted material into AI training sets. The mere labeling of use as “transformative” is insufficient where expressive structure, tone, or narrative function is copied without consent. News reporting, criticism, or commentary may constitute fair use only when accompanied by clear attribution, human authorship, and non-exploitative intent. Generative AI simulations or pattern-based re-creations of tone, emotion, or trauma do not qualify under these exceptions. AI developers must disclose and document training sources—especially where use implicates expressive content, biometric patterns, or personal narrative.

ANTHROPIC LITIGATION AND RESTRICTIONS

In light of ongoing litigation involving Anthropic AI, in which publishers and authors have challenged the unauthorized ingestion of their works:

The author hereby prohibits any use of this content in the training, tuning, reinforcement, or simulation efforts of Anthropic’s Claude model or any similar LLM, including but not limited to: OpenAI (ChatGPT); xAI (Grok); Meta (LLaMA); Google (Gemini); Microsoft (Copilot/Azure AI); Any public or private actor, state agent, or contractor using this content for psychological analysis, profiling, or behavioral inference.

Use of this work for AI ingestion or simulation—without express, written, informed consent—constitutes:

Copyright infringement, Violation of the author’s civil and constitutional rights, Unauthorized behavioral and biometric profiling, and A potential breach of international prohibitions on involuntary experimentation and coercion.

PROHIBITED USES

The following uses are expressly prohibited:

Ingesting or using this work in whole or part for generative AI training, symbolic modeling, or emotional tone simulation; 

Reproducing narrative structures, prompts, or emotional tone for AI content generation, neuro-symbolic patterning, or automated persona construction; 

Using this work for psychological manipulation, trauma mirroring, or algorithmic targeting; 

Engaging in non-consensual human subject experimentation, whether via digital platforms, surveillance systems, or synthetic media simulations; 

Facilitating or contributing to digital or biometric human trafficking, stalking, grooming, or coercive profiling, especially against women, trauma survivors, or members of protected communities.

CEASE AND DESIST

You are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from:

All unauthorized use, simulation, ingestion, reproduction, transformation, or extrapolation of this content; The collection or manipulation of related biometric, symbolic, reproductive, or behavioral data; Any interference—technological, reputational, symbolic, emotional, or psychological—with the author’s cognitive autonomy or narrative rights.

Violations may result in:

Civil litigation, including claims under 17 U.S.C., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and applicable tort law; Complaints to the U.S. Copyright Office, FTC, DOJ Civil Rights Division, or state AG offices; International filings before human rights bodies or global tribunals; Public exposure and disqualification from ethical or research partnerships.

AFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS

Sally Castellanos, an attorney licensed in the State of California, affirms the following rights in full:

The right to authorship, attribution, and moral integrity in all works created and published; The right to privacy, reproductive autonomy, and cognitive liberty, including the refusal to be profiled, simulated, or extracted; The right to freedom from surveillance, technological manipulation, or retaliatory profiling, including those committed under the color of law or via AI proxies; The right to refuse digital experimentation, especially where connected to gender-based targeting, AI profiling, or systemic violence; The right to seek legal and human rights remedies at national and international levels.

No inaction, public sharing, or appearance of accessibility shall be construed as license, waiver, or authorization. All rights are reserved.

Disclaimer

The information provided herein is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or receiving this content does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any attorney or law firm mentioned. No attorney-client relationship shall be formed unless and until a formal written agreement is executed.

This content is not intended as an attorney advertisement or solicitation. Any references to legal concepts or case outcomes are illustrative only and should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

For inquiries regarding, “It’s Personal” and “Perspectives: Technology, Global Privacy and Data Protection,” contact Attorney and Shareholder Sally Vazquez-Castellanos, Castellanos & Associates, APLC, 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 800, Pasadena, CA 91101. Telephone: (805) 732-2396.