521 S.W.3d 893
Tex. App.2017Background
- Child C.R.-A.A. born and lived in Texas with Mother; Father lives in Oklahoma; parents unmarried.
- Texas DFPS filed termination petition (March 2015) and obtained emergency removal; Department became temporary managing conservator.
- In 2014 an Oklahoma court entered an agreed order establishing Father’s paternity and child-support obligations (no custody/visitation order).
- In Aug. 2016 Father moved to place the child with him in Oklahoma under the ICPC; associate judge held Father fit, found Oklahoma had continuing exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, ordered placement with Father and dismissed DFPS; trial court adopted after de novo hearing.
- Mother appealed, arguing (1) Oklahoma lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction because the Oklahoma order was not a "child custody determination," and (2) the ICPC procedures (e.g., home study) were required before interstate placement with Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DFPS/Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma had exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA | Oklahoma’s 2014 order was only paternity/child support, not a "child custody determination," so Texas (child's home state) retained jurisdiction | Oklahoma’s prior paternity/support order vested continuing jurisdiction | Held: Oklahoma order was not a child‑custody determination; Texas was the child’s home state and had jurisdiction |
| Whether the Oklahoma paternity/support order constituted a "child custody determination" under UCCJEA definitions | The order did not address custody/visitation and thus falls within the statutory exclusion for child‑support orders | DFPS/Father argued the order supported Oklahoma jurisdiction | Held: The UCCJEA excludes child‑support orders from "child custody determination"; paternity/support order did not confer exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether the ICPC applies to interstate placement of a child with a natural parent when the placement is initiated by the sending state/court | ICPC (and AAICPC Regulation 3) applies here, requiring compliance (e.g., home study) because placement was made by state actor, not parent | DFPS argued ICPC inapplicable to placement with a parent when parent is fit and child was not removed from that parent | Held: Under plain text of Article III(a) and related provisions, the ICPC applies to foster‑care/adoption placements, not placements with natural parents; Regulation 3 cannot expand the compact beyond its text under Texas law |
| Whether trial court erred by placing child with Father and dismissing DFPS without ICPC procedures | Mother: court improperly relied on ICPC/Regulation to order placement and dismiss DFPS without required ICPC steps | DFPS: placement appropriate because Father fit and ICPC did not apply | Held: Trial court erred in concluding ICPC applied; placement with Father could not be justified by ICPC procedures the court invoked; matter reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Stover, 165 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for subject‑matter jurisdiction and statutory interpretation)
- Berwick v. Wagner, 336 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (analysis whether foreign paternity judgment constituted a child‑custody determination)
- In re Salminen, 492 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (distinguishing jurisdiction for child support from child custody)
- McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) (ICPC does not apply to placements with natural parents; Regulation cannot override compact text)
- In re Alexis O., 959 A.2d 176 (N.H. 2008) (ICPC limited by plain language to foster care/adoption; regulations expanding scope invalid)
- Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (parental duty to support children; cited re: policy considerations)