the Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Waddell Gordon Long
401 S.W.3d 911
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Texas AG petitioned to establish a child-support order for children in North Carolina.
- Waddell Long resides in Texas; Adrienne Long and the children reside in North Carolina.
- North Carolina entered a divorce in 2006 that did not address child support or custody in detail.
- Trial court dismissed, finding North Carolina had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over child support.
- UIFSA governs jurisdiction and one-order-at-a-time rule; Texas may establish support under §159.401 if no existing order.
- Court reverses, holding NC decree silent on support and TX may adjudicate under UIFSA; remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas can adjudicate the child-support obligation. | Long contends NC retains exclusive jurisdiction. | AG argues UIFSA allows TX to establish order when no NC order exists. | Texas may adjudicate under UIFSA §159.401; NC lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Whether the NC judgment of absolute divorce forecloses a separate child-support petition. | Long asserts the NC decree is silent on child support; no order exists. | AG argues the lack of child-support provisions permits independent action. | NC decree silent on support; petition to establish is proper under UIFSA. |
| What law governs the scope and modification of a foreign child-support order. | Long emphasizes NC law on divorce scope; limitations on modification. | AG relies on UIFSA continuing-jurisdiction framework. | UIFSA governs; foreign order may be established or modified as appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Cuisenaire, 128 P.3d 446 (Nev. 2006) (NC divorce silent on support; Nevada allowed arrearage when no foreign order existed)
- Willers v. Willers, 587 N.W.2d 390 (Neb. 1998) (jurisdictional analysis in absence of a support order)
- Flitt v. Flitt, 561 S.E.2d 511 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) (separate actions for custody and support permissible)
- Baumann-Chacon v. Baumann, 710 S.E.2d 431 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (courts may join custody actions with divorce for efficiency)
- Daniel v. Daniel, 510 S.E.2d 689 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (summary judgment in divorce context; relevance to separate actions)