Opinion filed Februar y 1 8, 2010



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 02 79 -CV

____ ____ __ IN TH E INT ERE ST OF L. R. J., A CHILD

On App eal from the 161st Distr ict Court

Ector C ounty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B-4484-A D

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from an or der te rminating the par ental rig hts of L .R.J .’s biologica l father , Da vid , a nd g ra nti ngthe a do pti on

of L .R. J. by her st e pf a the r. Th e c on tr oll ingiss ue on a pp e a l is wh e the r t he tr ia l c ourt ha d jur isd ic tio n to mod if y an ou t- of

-s ta te c us tod

y de te rm inatio n. B e c a

us e it did not, we vac ate the tr ial court’s or der a nd dismiss the ca

use. David pre sents thirteen issues cha lleng ing the order terminating his parenta l r ights. I n the second issue, D avid asser ts that the out-of-state court n ei t h er lost nor declined jurisdiction over custody deter

minations and that the Texas trial court e rre d in disreg ardingthe mandator y provisions of T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 152.203 (Ve rnon 2008). That section, which is c ontained with i n theSee T EX
. F AM
. C O D E A NN . c h. 152 ( Ver

non 2008). 1

See M I CH
. C OMP
. L A WS A NN . §§ 722. 1101-.1406 (W es t 2002)

. 2 2 Uniform C hild Custody J urisdiction and Enforce ment Act (UCCJ EA) adopted by Texas, rea ds as 1 fo llo ws : § 152.203. Jurisdi ction to Modify Deter m ination Ex cept a s otherwise pr ovided in Section 152.204 [pertaining to tempor ary emer g ency

j u ri s diction] , a cour

t of this state may

not modify

a child custody deter mination made by

a cour t of another

state unless a c ourt of this s tate has jurisdiction to make an initial de termination under Sec tion 152.201(a)( 1) or ( 2) and:

(1) the c ourt of t h e o t h er state deter mines it no longer

has e xclu siv e c on ti nu in g jur isd ic tio n und e r S e c tio n 1 52 .2 02 or that a court of this state would be a more convenie nt forum under Section 152.207; or (2) a court of this state or

a cour t of the other state deter

mines that the child, the child’s pare nts, and any person a cting as a pa

rent do not presently

reside in the othe r state. We note that the exception for tempor ary emer g ency

jurisdiction does not a

pply in this ca se, nor ha s any party sug g ested that it should. The re cord shows that a judg e of the Macomb County Circuit Court in Mic higa n enter ed the initial custody

deter mination reg ardingL .R.J

. on April 29, 2005, pursuant to the UCCJ EA. I n that 2 judgme nt, David and L .R.J .’s m other were give n joint custody of L .R.J ., though L .R.J .’s mother wa s g ive n p ri mary

ph y sic a l c us tody

. Early

in 2 00 7, L .R. J. mov e d w ithhe r m oth e r a nd ste pf a the r t o Texas. I n Aug ust 2007, the Michig an court enter ed a consent orde r re g ardingg randpa rent visitation. The pe tition t o terminate D avid’s par ental rig hts was filed in E ctor County , Texas, on November 9, 2007, nine months after

L .R.J . moved to Texas. See Sections 152.201, 152.102(7) (r egar d ing the six -month, home-state r esidenc y require ment for the c hild). I n response to the petition, David and his pare nts filed special appea ranc es, pl eas to the j urisdiction, and requests for the court to dec line j u r i s d i c t i o nb e c a

u s e t h e M i c h i g an c o u rt r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o no v e r i s s u e s r e l a t i n g t o L

. R

. J

. ’ s c u s t o dy. There is nothing in the re cord to indicate that the trial c ourt consider ed these matters.We no te th atth e b ri efs filed in th is case i n d ic at e th atL. R. J. ’s mo th er an ds te p fath er n o l o n ger res id e in Texas, bu t h ave 3 return ed to Mich igan w

here Dav id also resides. 3 Howeve r, in c hild c ustody case s such as this, jurisdiction is predic ated on the U CCJ EA. In re S.L.P. , 123 S.W .3d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2003, no pet.). The question of jurisdiction under the UCCJ EA is one of subject- matter jurisdiction. Alfonso v. Skadden , 251 S.W .3d 52, 54-55 (Tex.), cert. de nied , 1 29 S.Ct . 402 (2 00 8) ; W alt e nb ur g v . W alt e nb ur g , 2 7 0 S. W. 3 d

3 0 8 , 3 1 5 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be wa ived, and it ca n be ra ised at any time, including on a

ppeal. Al fon so , 25 1 S. W.3 d at 55 ; Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 444-45 (Te x . 1993). Fur thermore , subject-matter

jurisdiction is a question of law to be re viewed de novo. Ma y he w v . To wn o

f Su nn y v ale , 964 S.W .2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). The clerk’s recor d in this case contains copies of t he orders and the judgme nt from Michig an relating to L .R.J .’s custody ; these had been cer tified by the Michig an cour

t. I nitial jurisdiction was established in Michig an, w h i ch wa s at that time the home state of all parties c oncer

ned. Once 3 established, the Ma comb County Circuit Court r et ai n ed exclusive continuing jurisdiction absent temporar y emer g ency

jurisdiction or jurisdiction to m odify

. See Sections 152.202-.203. Pursuant to Section 152.203, the Texas court had jurisdiction to modify the M ichig an cour t’s order only if the conditions of either Sec tion 152.203(1) or Sec tion 152.203(2) wer e met. Wit h respe ct to Sec tion 152.203( 1), there is nothing in the rec ord indicating th at t he Michig an cour

t had made a

deter mination that it no l ong er ha d exclusive c ontinuing jurisdiction or that a Te x as cour

t would be a more convenie nt forum. To the c ontrary , the re cord s h o ws that the Michig an cour

t continued to exercise jurisdiction afte r t he petiti on was filed in Tex as. The Mic higa n
c ourt , o n Jan

ua ry 22 , 2 00 8, e nte re d a

n o rd e r o f c onte mpt

a g a ins t L .R. J.’s mot

he r f or fa ili ngto comply with its prior order reg arding g randpa rent visi tation. I n the contempt order , the Michig an
c ourt a lso g ra nte d th e g ra

nd pa re nts thr e e we e ks of make -u p visi ta tio n time

. Thus , the re qu ir e me nts of subdivision (1) wer e not met. Wit h respe ct to subdivision (2), there is nothing in the rec ord indicating that either tria l court had dete rm in e d th a t D a v id n o lo n g e r r e s id e d in M ic h ig an
. T h e r e c o r d in d ic a te s th a t s e r v ic e of pr oc e ss i n th is c a se wa s h a d u po n D a vid in Mic hig an and that he wa s the re a ft e r t ra ns fe rr e d w ith in the fe dera l prison sy stem to W est Virg inia. Thoug h he may have been inc arc erated in another state,4

his resi dency

rema ined in Michig an whe re he had lived bef ore be ing inc arc era

ted and whe re he would be rele ased to a fter his ter m of incar cer ation. Se e In re Ma rri ag e of E ar in , 519 S.W .2d 892 (T e x. Civ . App .—Ho us ton [1st Di st. ] 197 5, no wr it) . B e c a us e Da vid ’s re sid e nc y

re ma ine d in Michig an, the r equire ments of subdivision (2) wer e not met. See Saav edra v. Sc hmidt , 96 S.W .3d 53 3, 54 1- 42 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 02 , n o p e t.) ; see also In reS.J.A. , 2 7 2 S. W. 3 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 3

- 8 4 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2008, no pe t.). Ther efor e, pursua nt to Section 152.203, the w ell-mea ning T exas trial court ha d no jurisdiction to mod i fy the child custody

deter mination that had been ma de by the Michig an cour

t. The sec ond issue is sustained. As that issue is dispositi ve of the appea l, we nee d not addre ss the rema ining issues. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. We vacate the orde r terminating p ar en t al ri g hts and g ranting adoption, and we rende r judgme nt dismi ssing the c ause f or lac k of subject- matter jurisdiction.

J I M R. W RI GHT CH I EF JUSTI CE

Fe bruar y 18, 2010 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., McCall, J ., and Strang e, J.