426 S.W.3d 128
Tex. App.2012Background
- Isquierdo filed a special appearance/plea to jurisdiction and moved to decline jurisdiction in favor of an Arizona forum regarding a petition to modify the parent-child relationship.
- Final divorce decree (2005) granted Isquierdo sole managing conservator and Macklin as possessory conservator with visitation rights.
- In 2011 Macklin sought to modify custody; Isquierdo asserted no Texas subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that Arizona was the appropriate forum.
- Isquierdo’s affidavit claimed she and the children had resided in Arizona since 2007 and had little to no Texas contact since 2005, with no Texas evidence concerning the children’s care or relationships.
- The trial court denied the special appearance and entered findings asserting continuing exclusive jurisdiction in Texas based on Macklin’s Texas residence and the initial custody determination.
- The court granted mandamus relief, holding the trial court abused its discretion by applying 152.202(a)(1) to retain jurisdiction given no significant Texas connection or substantial Texas evidence since 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Texas have exclusive continuing jurisdiction under 152.202(a)(1)? | Isquierdo contends no significant Texas connection and no substantial Texas evidence. | Macklin argues Texas retains jurisdiction due to initial Texas custody decree and ongoing ties. | Yes, Isquierdo sustained; no significant connection or substantial Texas evidence. |
| Was the trial court’s denial of the forum-decline/venue appropriate given Arizona as a forum? | Isquierdo argued for Arizona as the more appropriate forum. | Macklin urged Texas as proper under the original decree. | Not addressed on the merits due to mandamus relief; issue deemed moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (initial-determination and continuing-jurisdiction standards under UCCJEA cited)
- Razo v. Vargas, 355 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (significant-connection and continuing-jurisdiction principles applied)
- In re K.B.A., 145 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (courts that one parent’s residence in the state does not determinatively determine jurisdiction)