in the Interest of T.B. and A.B., Children
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 7538
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Mother moved with two children from Florida to Tarrant County, Texas in May 2012; Father remained in Florida.
- Florida court (St. Lucie County) entered a May 28, 2013 order approving the parties’ settlement in a paternity proceeding: it declared paternity, set a parenting plan and visitation, and provided that the children would live in Texas; it did not require child support.
- Mother registered the Florida order in Tarrant County and filed a SAPCR in Texas on August 1, 2014 seeking modification of custody/visitation and to establish support.
- Father filed a motion to dismiss in Texas claiming Florida had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA; Father also filed to reopen the Florida case and asked the Florida court to confirm jurisdiction. The Florida court did not respond for months.
- After approximately six months without any response or ruling from the Florida court, the Texas trial court held a final hearing, entered a judgment modifying the Florida order, and awarded attorney’s fees. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas trial court could modify Florida custody order under UCCJEA | Babcock (Mother): Texas has initial-jurisdiction predicates (children/residence, substantial evidence in Texas) and Florida implicitly declined jurisdiction by failing to act, so Texas is more convenient | Babcock (Father): Florida is the UCCJEA home state with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and no written Florida order declining jurisdiction, so Texas lacks subject-matter jurisdiction | Court: Affirmed Texas jurisdiction. Texas met initial-jurisdiction factors and Florida’s prolonged inaction (no response for months) constituted an implied declination that Texas was the more convenient forum under UCCJEA |
| Whether Texas could modify child-support under UIFSA | Mother: UIFSA governs support; because Florida’s order did not include a child-support order, Florida never acquired continuing, exclusive UIFSA jurisdiction; Texas may establish support | Father: Implicitly argued Florida control/that UIFSA prevents Texas action (but Florida’s order contained no support provision) | Court: UIFSA did not vest Florida with exclusive jurisdiction because the Florida order did not constitute a “child support order”; Texas had authority to enter support orders |
| Whether trial court could award attorney’s fees | Mother: Fees are within the court’s remedial authority once jurisdiction over custody/support is proper | Father: If court lacked jurisdiction under UCCJEA/UIFSA, fee award was unauthorized | Court: Because trial court had jurisdiction under both UCCJEA and UIFSA, fee award was proper; Father’s challenge to fee amount was not raised |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Dean, 393 S.W.3d 741 (Tex. 2012) (UCCJEA promotes national uniformity and limits interstate conflicting custody orders)
- In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (factors showing significant connections/substantial evidence for UCCJEA jurisdiction)
- Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (discussing effect when home-state court modifies order and states it retains exclusive jurisdiction)
- Hart v. Kozik, 242 S.W.3d 102 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007) (parties’ forum-selection agreement is a factor but not dispositive in inconvenient-forum analysis)
- In re M.I.M., 370 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (distinguishing UCCJEA custody jurisdiction from UIFSA support jurisdiction)
- Office of Attorney Gen. v. Long, 401 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (absence of prior child-support order means UIFSA continuing jurisdiction was not triggered)