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:After the trial court in this case made an initial child-custody determination, the children lived with their custodial parent (Robert) in four different states over a five and one-half year period while the non-custodial parent (Ann) remained in Texas. The current dispute arose in 2001 when Robert lost his job in Virginia and was offered a two year contract job in Taipei, Taiwan. Claiming that she had experienced difficulty in exercising her possession rights, Ann filed this suit on September 10, 2001, seeking to modify the prior agreed possession order. During a pretrial conference seven days before the scheduled trial date, Robert filed a second motion to dismiss alleging that the court did not have exclusive continuing jurisdiction under Texas Family Code 152.202(a) to modify its previous child-custody order. The trial court conducted another evidentiary hearing and denied the motion. The court of appeals, however, concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion and granted Robert’s petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order and dismiss the case. HOLDING:The court conditionally grants the writ of mandamus and directs the court of appeals to vacate its order directing the trial court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Robert contends that the children no longer have a significant connection with Texas because 1. the children visited here only five times in the four-year period preceding this action; and 2. Ann’s residence in Texas is not sufficient, as the commentary to Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act 152.202 specifically notes that the presence of one parent remaining in the state is not determinative. But Ann does not rely on her mere presence in Texas to establish a significant connection under the statute. Contrary to Robert’s briefing, the record indicates that the children actually visited Texas six times in the relevant period. On four of these occasions the children lived with Ann for considerable periods, each lasting approximately one month during the summer. The court presumes that the trial court accepted as true Ann’s testimony that more visitation would have occurred in Texas but for Robert’s actions and the fact that the children were not allowed to fly to Texas. Robert also relies on In the Interest of C.C.B. & M.J.B., No. 08-01-00353-CV (Tex. App. El Paso Dec. 5, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication), in which the court stated that the contacts in In the Interest of Bellamy, 67 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. � Texarkana 2002, no pet.), are “the types of significant contacts that might cause a Texas court to retain jurisdiction in Texas even when a child moves from the state.” To the extent this statement concerns the nature and quality of the child’s contacts with the resident parent, it is consistent with Bellamy and the UCCJEA. But insofar as the statement might suggest that such a high level of physical presence in Texas is necessary to satisfy the 202(a)’s significant connection standard, the court disapproves it. The children’s almost continual change of residence supports the trial court’s conclusion that the children had a significant connection with Texas based on their visits here and their personal relationships maintained in this state. Because 201, which governs the initial custody determination, requires both a significant connection and substantial evidence, Robert concludes that 202 must as well. The court disagrees. Exclusive jurisdiction continues in the decree-granting state as long as a significant connection exists or substantial evidence is present. To the extent that Bellamy is inconsistent with this holding, the court disapproves it. Because the court does not conclude that the trial court did not err in concluding that the children had a substantial connection with Texas on Sept. 10, 2001, the court does not address whether substantial evidence existed here as well. OPINION:O’Neill, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

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.