Dancing With the Stars professional Gleb Savchenko filed an emergency request in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 13, 2025, seeking sole legal and physical custody of his 15-year-old daughter Olivia, alleging ex-wife Elena Samodanova violated a 2023 agreement permitting only a one-year move to Hong Kong. The case turns on a threshold California question: which country's courts have jurisdiction to decide custody.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Gleb Savchenko filed an emergency request for sole legal and physical custody, accusing Elena Samodanova of failing to return their child from Hong Kong |
| When | Filing dated July 13, 2025; mediation ordered for Aug. 5, hearing set Aug. 18, 2025 |
| Where | Los Angeles Superior Court, California |
| Who's affected | Savchenko, Samodanova, and their 15-year-old daughter Olivia |
| Key statute/rule | California's UCCJEA, Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 (home-state jurisdiction) |
| Impact | Court must decide whether California or Hong Kong is the child's "home state" before ruling on custody |
As E! News reported, Savchenko claims the 2023 post-judgment agreement authorized only a "temporary" one-year relocation and that Samodanova never returned the children. Samodanova responded that California "lacks jurisdiction" because Hong Kong is now the children's habitual residence, and that Savchenko wrongfully canceled Olivia's return ticket.
Why this matters legally
This dispute will be decided on jurisdiction before anyone argues about the child's best interests. Under California's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a court cannot make an initial custody determination unless California qualifies as the child's "home state" or one of the Act's narrow alternative bases applies. That threshold question — not the merits — is what the August hearing will likely address first.
The UCCJEA defines "home state" as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the custody proceeding began. When a child has been living in another jurisdiction for over a year, the party who moved will almost always argue that California lost home-state status. That is precisely Samodanova's position: if Hong Kong is where Olivia has habitually resided, California courts may have no authority to reallocate custody at all.
But a temporary-absence provision can change the analysis. If a California court finds the Hong Kong stay was a court-sanctioned temporary relocation rather than a permanent move, California may retain what the statute calls exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. That distinction — permanent relocation versus temporary absence — is the legal fulcrum of this entire case.
How California law handles this
California adopted the UCCJEA in Cal. Fam. Code § 3421, which governs initial child custody jurisdiction. A California court has jurisdiction if California was the child's home state within six months before the proceeding and a parent still lives here, even if the child has since left. This "extended home-state" rule is often the anchor a left-behind parent relies on when the other parent removes a child abroad.
Equally important is Cal. Fam. Code § 3422, the exclusive continuing jurisdiction provision. When a California court has already entered a custody order — as apparently happened here through the 2023 post-judgment agreement — that court generally keeps jurisdiction to modify it until neither the child nor either parent has a significant connection to California and substantial evidence is no longer available here. A prior California order is a powerful reason the Los Angeles court may keep control of this matter.
California also gives courts emergency authority. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3424, a court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if a child is present in the state, or if it is necessary to protect the child because of abuse or the threat of abuse. Emergency jurisdiction is limited and temporary; it does not by itself create permanent authority to decide custody, but it can allow a court to issue protective orders while the home-state question is sorted out.
Finally, custody mediation is not optional in California. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3170, when custody or parenting time is contested, the court must set the matter for mediation before the contested hearing. That is why the Los Angeles court ordered the Aug. 5 mediation ahead of the Aug. 18 hearing — it is a statutory requirement, not a discretionary step. Understanding child custody frameworks helps readers see why the process moves in this sequence.
Practical takeaways
Cross-border custody disputes are among the most difficult in family law. If you are navigating a potential international relocation — or fear one — these practical points apply under California law:
-
Get relocation terms in writing with an end date. If a move is meant to be temporary, the order or agreement should state the exact return date and specify that California retains jurisdiction. Savchenko's reliance on a "one-year" term shows why precise language matters.
-
Act quickly if a child is not returned. California's extended home-state rule under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 generally looks at the six months before the proceeding, so delay can erode your jurisdictional footing.
-
Preserve the existing California order. A prior custody order can trigger exclusive continuing jurisdiction under Cal. Fam. Code § 3422, often keeping the case in California courts even after a child leaves.
-
Understand the Hague Convention overlay. International child-abduction cases can implicate the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which turns on the child's "habitual residence" — the same concept Samodanova raised. This adds a separate track beyond the UCCJEA.
-
Prepare for mandatory mediation. Because Cal. Fam. Code § 3170 requires mediation in contested custody matters, build your parenting proposal early. Our parenting time calculator can help you model realistic schedules before you sit down.
-
Map your next steps. Cross-border matters move fast and involve overlapping laws. A personalized divorce roadmap can help you organize documents and deadlines before your first hearing.
International relocation disputes rarely resolve cleanly, and the jurisdictional stakes here are unusually high because a foreign forum is competing with a California court. Whether the Los Angeles court keeps the case will likely shape everything that follows.
If you are facing a custody dispute involving relocation across state or national lines, connecting with an experienced family law attorney early can protect your jurisdictional position. You can find a divorce attorney in your area to discuss your specific circumstances.
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.