In re Dean
393 S.W.3d 741
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Texas adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to prioritize home state jurisdiction in custody disputes.
- The Act aims to minimize conflicting custody orders across states by identifying the child's home state as the primary basis for jurisdiction.
- J.S.D. was born in New Mexico and has resided there since birth; Carrie moved to New Mexico before birth and later custody proceedings were filed.
- Richard filed for divorce in Texas and sought custody orders, while Carrie filed in New Mexico asserting New Mexico as J.S.D.’s home state.
- New Mexico court initially held J.S.D.’s home state was New Mexico and declined to open a forum for Texas; Texas court later retained jurisdiction.
- The Texas and New Mexico courts and counsel conference occurred; New Mexico deferred to Texas, and Texas adopted orders granting interim custody arrangements while appeals proceeded; New Mexico later issued proposed dispositions affirming New Mexico’s exclusive jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas had jurisdiction to make the initial custody determination. | Richard argues Texas should have jurisdiction due to filing first. | Carrie argues New Mexico is J.S.D.’s home state with exclusive jurisdiction. | No; New Mexico is the home state; Texas lacked exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Whether New Mexico effectively declined jurisdiction or ceded to Texas. | New Mexico deferred to Texas after finding home state. | New Mexico did not base its declination on inconvenient-forum grounds. | New Mexico did not properly decline under §201(a)(3); Texas erred in retaining. |
| Whether § 152.201(a) violates separation of powers/open courts/equal protection arguments. | Richard asserts constitutional challenges to home-state rule. | Texas defends statute as a procedural mechanism not infringing rights. | Statute constitutional; open courts and equal protection not violated; home-state rule is valid. |
| What is the appropriate remedy to resolve inter-state custody jurisdiction conflict. | Remedy should ensure exclusive jurisdiction to New Mexico. | Remedy should allow inter-state coordination and dismissal if another state is more appropriate. | Texas must confer with New Mexico Court of Appeals and, unless New Mexico declines, dismiss the Texas custody proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2005) (context for home state priority and inter-state coordination under UCCJEA)
- Seligman-Hargis v. Hargis, 186 S.W.3d 582 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006) (custody jurisdiction independent of divorce jurisdiction)
- Boots v. Lopez, 6 S.W.3d 292 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (divorce-related issues may be limited by UCCJEA)
- Arnold v. Price, 365 S.W.3d 455 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011) (California home state for custody despite divorce filing elsewhere)
- Waltenburg v. Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d 308 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (home state upon birth when child remains with mother after birth)
- Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.1983) (open courts analysis for remedies restricting common-law rights)
- Bell v. Low Income Women of Texas, 95 S.W.3d 253 (Tex.2002) (three-step framework for equal rights amendment analysis in custody context)