In re Salminen, 492 S.W.3d 31

Background

Relator Outi Salminen (Finnish citizen) sought child support under UIFSA in Texas for her daughter S.F.Z.V.; father Milo Vassallo is a New York resident.
Prior Finnish courts (2013 and 2014 orders) had awarded Salminen custody and set Vassallo visitation; those orders were registered in Texas filings.
Salminen and the child had been in Texas briefly (filed suit alleging Texas residence) but Salminen later filed a pleading asserting they returned to Finland about November 10, 2014.
Vassallo challenged UIFSA jurisdiction, alternatively asked the Texas trial court to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (Tex. Fam. Code § 152.204) alleging risk of abduction and denial of visitation.
On November 17, 2014 the trial court (over objection and without permitting Salminen phone testimony) entered a temporary order assuming UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction, appointed Vassallo temporary sole managing conservator, gave him immediate physical custody, supervised visitation to Salminen, and barred removal of the child from the U.S.
Salminen petitioned for mandamus; this court stayed the temporary order and conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the November 17 order for lack of proper UCCJEA emergency jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Salminen)	Defendant's Argument (Vassallo)	Held
Whether Texas had "home state" jurisdiction under the UCCJEA	Texas was not the child’s home state; child had not lived in Texas six months; Finnish orders control	Child had been present in Texas recently and petition alleged Texas residence	Held: Texas was not the child’s home state; §152.201 did not confer jurisdiction
Whether trial court could exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA §152.204	No: child was not in Texas at the time, no abandonment or threat of mistreatment, no imminent abduction evidence	Yes: history of forum-shopping, absconding, missed visitations, and risk of abduction justified emergency relief	Held: No — Vassallo failed to prove child present or that abandonment/mistreatment/threat existed; emergency jurisdiction was abused
Whether trial court complied with §152.204 procedural requirements when prior foreign custody order exists	Trial court failed to specify a time period to seek relief from court of continuing jurisdiction and did not communicate with Finnish court	Trial court properly entered temporary protective orders until Finnish court could be heard	Held: Trial court did not comply with §152.204(c)-(d); it failed to specify an adequate period or show communication with Finnish court
Whether mandamus relief was appropriate	Mandamus appropriate because temporary custodial orders are not appealable and jurisdictional error is reviewable	Argued trial court acted within discretion under emergency exception	Held: Mandamus proper; trial court abused discretion and must vacate temporary order

Key Cases Cited

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard; abuse of discretion and inadequate remedy by appeal)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Geary v. Peavy, 878 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1994) (mandamus appropriate to enforce UCCJEA jurisdictional provisions)
In re Dean, 393 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2012) (subject-matter jurisdiction in child custody matters determined by UCCJEA)
Garza v. Harney, 726 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1987) (temporary emergency jurisdiction under predecessor statute is narrow and for immediate harm)
Koester v. Montgomery, 886 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (home-state requirement; six‑month rule)
In re Burk, 252 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (in custody jurisdiction disputes relator need not show inadequacy of appellate remedy)
In re McDaniel, 408 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (mandamus for temporary SAPCR orders)
Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1978) (jurisdictional principles differ between support and custody cases)
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1953) (child custody jurisdiction focuses on child’s domicile)