in the Interest of R.S.T., a Child
14-15-00925-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- In Sept. 2011 the Texas OAG registered a Louisiana child‑support order (monthly $152) and moved to confirm arrearages; a December 2011 hearing produced an order confirming $21,584 in arrears and an income‑withholding order. The OAG later nonsuited that enforcement action in March 2012.
- Father later filed a Motion to Modify (alleging lack of paternity and challenging withholding). The OAG answered and moved to dismiss/amend answers but did not appear at the July 6, 2015 hearing on Father’s motion.
- On August 10, 2015 the Texas trial court entered a default Order in Suit to Modify Child Support Withholding, finding Father’s allegations true and ordering Harris County to stop withholding from Father’s pay.
- The OAG filed a restricted appeal, arguing the trial court erred on the face of the record: the Louisiana order had been registered and confirmed by operation of law (Fam. Code §§159.605–.606) and the Texas court lacked statutory authority to modify the registered foreign order under Fam. Code §§159.611 and 159.613.
- OAG also argued Father used the wrong remedy to challenge an administrative writ of withholding: Fam. Code §158.506 provides an administrative and then judicial review path for obligors contesting writs of withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OAG) | Defendant's Argument (Bedford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Texas trial court properly modified a registered Louisiana child‑support order | Registration was confirmed by operation of law because Father failed to timely contest registration under Fam. Code §§159.605–.606; thus Texas court could not modify the controlling Louisiana order | Father sought modification and suspension of withholding based on denial of paternity and asserted defects in service/registration | The trial court erred: record shows registration was confirmed and the court did not establish jurisdictional facts required to modify under §§159.611 or 159.613; modification was improper on the face of the record |
| Whether Texas had jurisdiction to modify the registered foreign order under Fam. Code §159.611 | OAG: §159.611 permits modification only when statutory residence/personal‑jurisdiction conditions are met; no evidence/ findings on residence or jurisdiction were in the record | Father contended modification was proper (he denied paternity and sought relief from withholding) | Held for OAG: record lacks the residency/personal‑jurisdiction findings required by the statute, so §159.611 did not authorize modification |
| Whether Texas had jurisdiction to modify under Fam. Code §159.613 (all individual parties reside in Texas) | OAG: §159.613 requires explicit factual showing that all individual parties reside in Texas and that child does not reside in issuing state; record contains no such evidence or findings | Father asserted he resided in Texas and the court could assume jurisdiction to address withholding | Held for OAG: no evidence/findings on parties’ residences in the record, so §159.613 does not support the modification |
| Whether Father used the proper remedy to challenge administrative writ of withholding | OAG: obligor must use administrative contest under Fam. Code §158.506 and then seek judicial review if needed; Father used a modification proceeding instead | Father sought prompt judicial relief to stop withholding and to obtain genetic testing | Held for OAG: Father used an incorrect remedy; failure to pursue §158.506 administrative review is an error on the face of the record supporting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. Barber, 323 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1944) (Full Faith and Credit requires recognition of sister‑state judgments)
- Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. 1992) (properly proven foreign judgment is entitled to recognition and enforcement)
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1963) (res judicata effect of courts’ judgments depends on jurisdiction in the rendering forum)
- Glass v. Williamson, 137 S.W.3d 114 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (procedures for registration and confirmation of out‑of‑state support orders under UIFSA provisions)
- In re E.H., 450 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (full faith and credit and UIFSA matters in Texas appellate context)
- Villanueva v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 935 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (res judicata/full faith & credit principles between states)
- Dunn v. Mortenson, 839 So.2d 1007 (La. Ct. App. 2003) (applying Louisiana res judicata principles to require deference to prior forum determinations)