Opinion

Defendant Marvin M. (Father) and plaintiff Keisha W. (Mother) are the parents of Marvin M. II (Minor). Father appeals from an August 2012 restraining order that, among other things, awarded custody of Minor to Mother (A137991), and from the family court’s January 2013 acceptance of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq.) 1 (A137861). 2 We affirm the restraining order at issue in A137991, and dismiss the appeal in A137861 as being from an unappealable order.

BACKGROUND

Case No. A137991

On August 6, 2012, Mother requested a restraining order to protect herself and Minor, bom in April 2006, from Father. Mother’s accompanying declaration explained that she and Father previously lived in Texas and were in a relationship that ended in April 2010. She described instances of domestic violence and threatening conduct by Father that caused her to leave Texas with Minor in August 2011. According to the declaration, on May 31, 2012, Father picked up Minor from his daycare in California and absconded with *584 Minor to Nevada. Mother sought return of Minor and modification of a January 2011 Texas custody order that provided for shared custody of Minor. Mother informed the superior court that, in July 2012, the Texas court indicated it no longer had jurisdiction over custody because the parents and Minor no longer lived in Texas.

The superior court issued a temporary restraining order on August 8, 2012, and set a hearing on the request for a restraining order for August 31. On August 30, Father filed a written response with extensive attachments, opposing, among other things, Mother’s custody request. Following the August 31 hearing, the superior court issued a restraining order protecting both Mother and Minor from Father, and ordering that Mother have physical custody of Minor. The court found it had “jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under” the UCCJEA.

On September 20, 2012, the restraining order was served on Father in Nevada. On February 26, 2013, Father filed a notice of appeal of the restraining order.

Case No. A137861

On November 28, 2012, Mother commenced a family court proceeding by filing a petition for custody and support. She requested physical custody of Minor with supervised visitation for Father.

Father challenged the family court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the custody issue under the UCCJEA. On January 30, 2013, the superior court conducted a UCCJEA conference call with judges from the Nevada and Texas courts. The court’s minutes reflect that the Texas court “decline[d] jurisdiction,” the Nevada court “neither accepted] nor decline[d] jurisdiction,” and the California court “accepted] jurisdiction over this matter.” At a February 4 hearing, the court retained jurisdiction “pending further notice,” ordered that Minor be turned over to Mother, and set hearings on the issue of jurisdiction and custody for February 21 and April 8, respectively.

On or around February 5, 2013, Father appealed from the family court’s January 30 acceptance of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

I. The Appeal from the August 31, 2012 Restraining Order (A137991)

At the outset, we conclude the February 26, 2013 appeal (A137991) from the August 31, 2012 restraining order was not untimely. Under rule 8.104 *585 of the California Rules of Court, 3 Father had 180 days after entry of the order to appeal, unless he received notice as specified in rule 8.104(a)(1)(A) or (B). Rule 8.104(a)(1)(A) requires the filing of an appeal within 60 days after “the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served . . . .” Rule 8.104(a)(1)(B) requires the filing of an appeal within 60 days after “the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service . . . .” In the present case, the record contains a completed “Proof of Personal Service” form reflecting that Father was served with a copy of the restraining order on September 20, 2012. However, the form does not reflect that the order was file-stamped or that Father was served with a document entitled “Notice of Entry.” Thus, Father had 180 days from entry of the order to appeal. Because February 26, 2013, is within 180 days from August 31, 2012, the appeal in A137991 is timely.

Father contends issuance of the restraining order violated the UCCJEA, because a Texas family court had already issued a child custody order regarding Minor. “[T]he UCCJEA is the ‘exclusive means of determining subject matter jurisdiction in custody disputes involving other jurisdictions. [Citations.]’ [Citations.] The UCCJEA ensures that only one state has jurisdiction to make ‘child custody determinations,’ which, as relevant here, is defined in section 3402, subdivision (c), to include a ‘permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order’ of a ‘court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child.’ ” (In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin & Sanchez (2011) 191 CaI.App.4th 1015, 1037 [120 Cal.Rptr.3d 227] (Fernandez-Abin).) The UCCJEA applied to the restraining order at issue in the present case. (§ 3402, subd. (d) [for purposes of the UCCJEA, the term “ ‘[cjhild custody proceeding’ . . . includes a proceeding for . . . protection from domestic violence . . .”]; see Fernandez-Abin, at pp. 1037-1039.)

In the present case, the superior court found it had “jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the” UCCJEA. Father argues the court did not have temporary emergency jurisdiction under section 3424, 4 because Minor was not present in California on August 31, 2012. However, we conclude the more pertinent question is whether the superior court had jurisdiction to modify the Texas court’s custody determination under section *586 3423. That section provides that a court may “modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state” if the California court has jurisdiction to make a custody determination under section 3421, subdivision (a)(1) or (2), and the court “determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.” (§ 3423.) 5

It is undisputed that neither Minor nor either of the parties was residing in Texas on August 31. As for jurisdiction over Minor, subdivision (a)(1) of section 3421 provides: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 3424, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if any of the following are true: [][] (1) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state.” Mother averred she and Minor moved to California in August 2011, which provided a basis for a determination California was Minor’s home state. (§ 3402, subd. (g).) In a supplemental letter brief, Father contends California was not Minor’s home state because Minor was not residing in the state for six consecutive months immediately prior to Mother’s August 6, 2012 request to modify the custody order. But where Minor is absent and a parent is present, section 3421, subdivision (a)(1) provides as an alternative that California was the home state within six months of commencement of the proceeding. That provision applies here. (Brewer v. Carter (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1317 [160 Cal.Rptr.3d 853].) We conclude the superior court had jurisdiction to modify the Texas custody order under section 3423. 6

*587 Father also contends the superior court was obligated to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Mother brought Minor to California in violation of the Texas order and failed to promptly seek modification of that order. He relies on subdivision (a) of section 3428, which provides that “if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless” the parents acquiesce in jurisdiction, a court of a state having jurisdiction “determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under Section 3427,” or “[n]o court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in Sections 3421 to 3423, inclusive.”

We conclude the superior court impliedly found that no court of any other state had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA at the time the restraining order was issued in August 2012. (§ 3428, subd. (a)(3).) 7 Texas and Nevada were the only other states with possible claims to jurisdiction. Regarding Texas, under Texas Family Code, section 152.202, subdivision (a)(2) (the analogue to § 3428, subd. (a)(2)), the Texas court had “exclusive continuing jurisdiction” over custody “until [][]... [][] ... a court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.” It is undisputed that neither the parties nor Minor resided in Texas in August 2012. Regarding Nevada, that state did not have jurisdiction because, among other possible reasons, Minor had not yet resided there for six months as of August 31. (Nev. Rev. Stat. 125A.085 [Nevada analogue to § 3402, subd. (g)].) 8 *588 For the above reasons, the superior court had jurisdiction under section 3423 to modify the Texas court’s custody determination on August 31, 2012.* ** 9

II. The Appeal from the January 30, 2013 UCCJEA Conference (A137861) *

DISPOSITION

In A137991, the August 31, 2012 restraining order is affirmed. In A137861, the appeal is dismissed. Respondent is awarded her costs on appeal.

Jones, P. J., and Bruiniers, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied September 5, 2014, and October 7, 2014, and on September 5, 2014, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 25, 2014, S221922.