in Re: Jamie Majors
12-15-00193-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Jamie and Heather Majors divorced in Anderson County, Texas, on May 2, 2013; the decree made them joint managing conservators and gave Heather the right to designate the children’s primary residence.
- In summer 2013 Heather allegedly agreed orally to let Jamie keep the children for one school year while she completed nursing school; the decree was not modified by the court.
- Jamie took the children to Virginia after the divorce, did not return them after the 2013–14 school year, and the children have lived and attended school in Virginia since then.
- Jamie filed a petition to modify conservatorship in Texas and later filed a plea to the jurisdiction/motion to dismiss under the UCCJEA arguing Texas lacked continuing jurisdiction; the trial court denied those motions after a July 17, 2015 hearing.
- Jamie filed an original proceeding for mandamus relief in the Texas Court of Appeals (12th Dist.), which considered whether the trial court abused its discretion in retaining jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jamie) | Defendant's Argument (Heather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas lacks exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the children have been in Virginia and no significant connection/substantial evidence remains in Texas | Children have lived, gone to school and church in Virginia for >2 years; records and relationships now in VA — Texas no longer has significant connection or substantial evidence | Heather and family remain in Texas; children have close relationships with Heather and Texas family; Jamie wrongfully retained the children in VA contrary to the decree, so VA ties are a result of his misconduct | Denied mandamus. Texas retains jurisdiction because a significant connection to Texas exists (Heather and family remain there) and the VA ties resulted from Jamie’s wrongful retention; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to require dismissal | Mandamus should issue because trial court erred as a matter of law under the UCCJEA | Trial court acted within discretion based on credibility findings and evidence of Texas ties | Mandamus denied: no clear abuse of discretion and adequate factual basis supported trial court’s decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2005) (mandamus appropriate to enforce UCCJEA jurisdictional rules)
- In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (UCCJEA exclusive continuing jurisdiction and significant-connection analysis)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (trial court as factfinder, credibility and weight of evidence)
- In re Kubankin, 257 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (agreements about conservatorship unenforceable without court approval)
- In re Milton, 420 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (mandamus standards for factual-discretion review)
- In re Brilliant, 86 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002) (court may discount contacts that arose from a parent's wrongful retention)