Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The relator, Linda Zuflacht, individually and in her capacity as director for Adoption Services Associates, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Robin Sage, 307th Judicial District Court, Gregg County (the trial court) 1. to vacate its order of Oct. 11, 2004, which denied the relator’s pleas in abatement and plea to the trial court’s jurisdiction; 2. to vacate the trial court’s order to present the child for paternity testing; and 3. to dismiss the action filed by the real party in interest, Timothy Guy Summerfield. HOLDING:Conditionally granted. The 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County was vested with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this matter when the affidavit of voluntary relinquishment and the affidavit of the status of the child were filed. That court continued to assert its jurisdiction with issuance of the order of termination. Any discrepancy between the birth certificate and the mother’s affidavits, or any other evidence which might be adduced regarding the merits of the case, do not involve the forum or venue. From the scant record before us, it appears ASA instigated a suit to terminate the parent-child relationships and place the child for adoption at a time when the child resided in Bexar County. None of the issues involved in the instant controversy bear on the initial choice of forum; yet the issues in both the Bexar County suit and the suit filed in Gregg County involve the same issues and parties. It is clear that jurisdiction was established in the Bexar County District Court. Summerfield has failed to demonstrate that the conduct of the mother or relative estops ASA from proceeding in the Bexar County District Court. Based on the foregoing analysis, the court concludes the 307th Judicial District Court in Gregg County was under a ministerial duty to dismiss Summerfield’s action in favor of the 408th court in Bexar County. The court concludes the trial court erred by failing to dismiss this proceeding, as a court of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction had been previously established. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.