'Dancing with the Stars' pro Gleb Savchenko filed an emergency custody request in California on July 15, 2026, alleging ex-wife Elena Samodanova retained their two daughters in Hong Kong past a 2023 one-year agreement. The case hinges on whether California or Hong Kong is the girls' "home state" — a threshold question that determines which court can even hear the dispute.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Gleb Savchenko filed an emergency custody request seeking sole legal and physical custody |
| When | July 15, 2026; mediation set for August 5, 2026 |
| Where | California family court (both parents formerly Los Angeles residents) |
| Who's affected | Daughters Olivia (15, currently in California) and her sister (in Hong Kong) |
| Key statute/rule | California Family Code § 3421 (UCCJEA jurisdiction); Hague Convention on Child Abduction |
| Impact | Court must first decide home-state jurisdiction before ruling on custody |
According to TMZ, Savchenko alleges Samodanova kept the girls in Hong Kong past a "temporary" one-year agreement reached in 2023 and now refuses to return them, while Samodanova counters that Hong Kong is the children's legal home. He seeks no visitation for the mother pending review.
Why this matters legally
Before a California court can decide who gets custody, it must first decide whether it has jurisdiction at all — and in international cases, that question controls everything. Under the Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 (California's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA), a court generally has authority only if California was the child's "home state" within the six months before the case was filed, meaning the child lived here for at least six consecutive months.
This is the fault line in the Savchenko matter. Olivia, age 15, is currently in California with her father, which may support California jurisdiction over her. Her sister, who remains in Hong Kong, presents a harder problem: if she has lived abroad for years, Hong Kong — not California — may qualify as her home state. Courts can and do split jurisdiction between siblings when their living situations differ, which is why the August 5, 2026 mediation is only the first step, not the finish line.
How California law handles this
California treats international custody disputes through two overlapping legal frameworks, and both will apply here. The first is the UCCJEA. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3405, California courts must treat a foreign country like Hong Kong as if it were another U.S. state for jurisdiction purposes, deferring to the child's actual home. That statute is why Samodanova's "Hong Kong is their legal home" argument is not merely rhetorical — it is a recognized legal defense to California jurisdiction.
The second framework is the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a treaty adopted by the United States in 1988 and by roughly 100 countries. The Convention requires a child "wrongfully retained" away from their country of habitual residence to be returned so custody can be decided there. Critically, Hong Kong is a Hague Convention party, which means Savchenko has a potential treaty remedy separate from his California filing. But the Convention turns on "habitual residence" — and a documented multi-year stay in Hong Kong under a parental agreement can establish that the girls' habitual residence shifted, which would undercut an abduction claim.
California also provides emergency tools. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3424, a court may exercise "temporary emergency jurisdiction" if a child present in California needs protection. That statute is likely the hook for Savchenko's emergency request as to Olivia, who is physically here. Emergency jurisdiction, however, is limited and temporary — it does not permanently override the home-state analysis, and a California judge must communicate with any foreign court already handling the matter before issuing lasting orders.
The underlying custody standard, once jurisdiction is settled, is the "best interest of the child" under Cal. Fam. Code § 3011, which weighs health, safety, and each parent's ability to provide stability. For a 15-year-old like Olivia, California courts also consider the child's own preference under Cal. Fam. Code § 3042, which directs judges to give weight to the wishes of a child mature enough to express them.
Practical takeaways
International custody cases move on jurisdiction first and merits second. If you are a California parent facing a cross-border dispute, here is what this news illustrates:
-
Establish the home state early. Document where your child has physically lived, and for how long, before filing. The six-month home-state rule under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 can decide the entire case.
-
Treat "temporary" agreements seriously. A one-year travel or relocation agreement that lapses can, over time, shift a child's "habitual residence" abroad. Put an enforceable return date and jurisdiction clause in writing, and calendar it.
-
Know your Hague options. If a co-parent retains your child in a treaty country, you may file a Hague return petition in addition to any state-court request. The two remedies run on different clocks and standards.
-
Use emergency jurisdiction only for genuine emergencies. Cal. Fam. Code § 3424 protects children present in California but yields temporary orders — not a shortcut around the home-state rule.
-
Prepare for split outcomes. When siblings live in different countries, a court may take jurisdiction over one child and not the other. Build your strategy around each child's actual situation.
Understanding how child custody jurisdiction works is the single most important step in an international dispute, and mapping your family's timeline is where a personalized divorce roadmap can help you organize the facts a judge will want. If your matter involves cross-border enforcement, a California divorce attorney with UCCJEA and Hague experience can assess whether emergency jurisdiction applies to your situation.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.