Michael Lesem v. Liane Mouradian, 445 S.W.3d 366

Background

Parties divorced in 2002; parents were joint managing conservators. 2007 modification awarded Michael the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence and made Liane the child-support obligor.
In 2011 Liane moved with the child, J.M.L., to Palm Beach County, Florida; she alleged Michael voluntarily relinquished primary care in May 2011 and the child lived in Florida for over six months before the 2012 proceedings.
In August 2012 Michael filed a motion for enforcement alleging Liane failed to return the child after summer possession; Liane filed a petition to modify custody/support and separately moved to transfer/decline jurisdiction to Florida as an inconvenient forum.
The Texas trial court held a hearing (with the Florida judge on the phone), found the child’s home state was Florida, and ceded jurisdiction to Palm Beach County, Florida; the court did not file written findings.
On appeal Michael argued (1) the court improperly transferred custody without findings under the UCCJEA, (2) the court lacked authority to transfer child-support proceedings because he (the obligee) remains in Texas under UIFSA, and (3) an evidentiary hearing was required before transfer.
The court affirmed transfer of the custody claims but reversed as to child support, remanding for proceedings consistent with UIFSA.

Issues

Issue	Lesem's Argument	Mouradian's Argument	Held
Whether Texas erred by ceding custody jurisdiction to Florida under the UCCJEA	Transfer was improper because court made no explicit findings that child lacked significant connection to Texas or that Texas was an inconvenient forum	Florida is now the child’s home state; factors (child’s residence, witnesses, doctors, distance, costs) show Texas is an inconvenient forum and Texas should decline jurisdiction	Affirmed as to custody: implied findings support inconvenient-forum/significant-connection determination and transfer was not an abuse of discretion
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required before declining jurisdiction under UCCJEA §152.202/152.207	Court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on significant-connection and inconvenient-forum issues	Statute requires allowing parties to submit information but does not mandate a live evidentiary hearing; parties were allowed to submit affidavits and briefs	Overruled: no per se right to an evidentiary hearing; court did not err in deciding without live testimony given parties had opportunity to submit information
Whether the trial court could transfer the child-support modification to Florida when the obligee (Lesem) resides in Texas under UIFSA/Family Code §159.205	Transfer of support was improper because Texas retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its support order while obligee remains in Texas	(Mouradian conceded UIFSA continuity but argued custody/support jurisdiction separate under UCCJEA/UIFSA)	Reversed as to support: Texas retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over support modification while one party (Lesem) resides in Texas; trial court erred in transferring support matters

Key Cases Cited

In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (UCCJEA purpose and continuing jurisdiction principles)
Waltenburg v. Waltenburg, 270 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (implied findings when trial court issues no written findings)
Monk v. Pomberg, 263 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (inconvenient forum factors support transfer when child established ties in another state)
Dickerson v. Doyle, 170 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (trial court may decide inconvenient-forum motion without full evidentiary hearing if parties were allowed to submit information)
In re T.L., 316 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (UIFSA continuing, exclusive jurisdiction for support modifications)
In re Hattenbach, 999 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (trial court must retain support modification jurisdiction while a party remains in issuing state)