law-UCCJEA | Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act | Personal Jurisdiction over Parent
UCCJEA CASELAW FROM HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS
Texas has adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“Uniform Act") which governs
subject-matter jurisdiction of courts that deal with child custody disputes. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.§§152.001-.
371 (Vernon 2002 & Supp. 2008). Generally, under the Uniform Act, the court that makes the initial child
custody determination will retain exclusive continuing jurisdiction over ongoing custody disputes. Saavedra v.
Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533, 541-42 (Tex. App.-Austin 2002, no pet.). Texas state courts lack subject-matter
jurisdiction to modify the child custody determinations of a court in another state unless the requirements of
section 152.203 of the Family Code are satisfied. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 152.203.
Under section 152.203, a Texas court must have jurisdiction under section 152.201 (a)(1) or (a)(2) of the
Family Code. Tex. Fam. Code Ann ' 152.203.[1] In addition, one of the following provisions must be satisfied:
(1) the court of the other state must determine it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or that a Texas
court would be a more convenient forum; or (2) a Texas court or a court of the other state must determine that
the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 152.203; In re S.L.P., 123 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).
In the Interest of D.A.P. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008)(Seymore)
(child support, OAG suit UCCJEA, modification, order on SAPCR counterclaim reversed, no jurisdiction over
out-of-state parent due to failure to serve with citation UCCJEA)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Seymore
Before Justices Fowler, Frost and Seymore
14-06-00975-CV In the Interest of D.A.P
Appeal from 246th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Jim York
Therefore, there are potential fact patterns under which the trial court could have jurisdiction under the Uniform
Act. Although Bishop alleges in her brief that she currently lives in Washington with D.A.P., arguments in briefs
are not evidence. Castano v. San Felipe Agric., Mfg., & Irr. Co., 147 S.W.3d 444, 452-53 (Tex. App.- San
Antonio 2004, no pet.). Neither Piccardo's pleadings nor Bishop's evidence affirmatively negate jurisdiction of
the Texas court under section 152.203 to modify the Washington court's custody order. As explained below,
Bishop was not served with process and did not appear in the trial court prior to judgment; therefore, she was
not able to object to the failure to make a record of the proceedings in the trial court. Nonetheless, in the
absence of a record of the trial proceedings, this court still presumes that evidence was presented to the trial
court supporting the existence of facts under which the trial court would have subject-matter jurisdiction. See
Tex. Fam. Code Ann.§ 152.203; Simon, 739 S.W.2d at 795. Accordingly, we overrule Bishop's first issue.
No service on out-of-state parent
In sum, the record in this case shows that Bishop had not been served with process, had not waived service of
process, and did not voluntarily appear before the trial court conducted the trial and rendered its final order
regarding custody. Therefore, the trial court erred in modifying the Washington child custody order.
Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Bishop's motion for new trial in this regard.
Because we reverse the trial court's order as to Piccardo's claims against Bishop, this appeal does not
prejudice Bishop's ability, on remand, to argue, as she does in this appeal, that the trial court does not have
jurisdiction over the child custody issues under the Uniform Act.
Accordingly, we sustain Bishop's second issue, reverse the portion of the order pertaining to issues of child
custody, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[2] Because no party has appealed
the portion of the order pertaining to issues of child support, we affirm the portion of the trial court's order
imposing a duty of child support on Piccardo.[3]