X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship (“SAPCR”), appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction. HOLDING:Affirmed. The commissioners’ comment to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act states that the purpose of �152.208 is to ensure that when parents “act in a reprehensible manner, such as removing, secreting, retaining, or restraining the child,” they will not receive an advantage for their unjustifiable conduct. Appellant is the party seeking to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, it is appellant’s conduct that is examined under the standard set forth in the unjustifiable conduct provision. The record reflects that appellant’s pleadings in the trial court failed to apprise the court that she had participated in previous court proceedings regarding the custody of S.L.P. or that her parental rights had been terminated by the state of Nevada. When the children ran away, the appellant picked them up in San Francisco and chose not to return them to the appellee in violation of the Nevada 1993 custody determination and Texas law prohibiting interference with child custody. These violations, which continued for over two years, are the only reason the appellant was able to keep S.L.P. in Texas for six months and thereby establish Texas as S.L.P.’s home state. This type of conduct falls squarely within the provision of �152.208 in that Texas acquired jurisdiction under the UCCJEA only because the appellant engaged in unjustifiable conduct. The UCCJEA requires Texas courts to recognize child custody determinations made by other states in order to fulfill one of the major purposes of the UCCJEA, which is to provide a remedy for interstate custody battles. In the commissioners’ official prefatory note to the UCCJEA, the authors of the act noted that when one parent “leave[s] the state where the custody determination was made, the other parent faces considerable difficulty in enforcing the visitation and custody provisions of the decree. Locating the child, making service of process, and preventing adverse modification in a new forum all present problems.” Because �152.208 states that the court “shall” decline to exercise its jurisdiction in cases of unjustifiable conduct, the UCCJEA does not permit the trial court to exercise jurisdiction over this case. The court holds that the trial court did not err in granting the appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction. The court does not address whether Texas was a convenient forum under �152.207. OPINION:Holman, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.