that of the Pathersfor the custody and controlof the ohild,upoa whichthefhther'sdomicileis imputedto the child,no longer exists,but is transferred-to the mother."
Ia Griffinvs. Griffin,187 Pacifio598, where a wife was granted a diwroe in Californiawith custodyof the ohildma, and subsequently obtainedthe court'soonditioaalpermissionto take than out of its juris- diction,but disregardedthe ooaditionto returnthan, theirfather having apparentlyremainedin that state,it ws said:
We larowof no law that would preventthe mother from ohangiagher dmnicile to anotherstate, and,'uponcompliancewith the deoree,taking the ohildrea with her. The childrenbeing in the oare and custodyof the mother,her resideaosis their residenoe. Suoh is the naturaleffeot of a decreeof divorce."
m'our opinionyour question,as ns have restatedit at the begin- ning of this opinion,shouldbe answeredia the affirmative. Ws have also been furnishedwith certifiedcopiesof tastnrments shamingthe removalof the student'sdisabilitiesas a minor, in the 37th DistrictCourt of Bexar countyon September7, 1939. Whether or not this judgmentis bindingoa the Universityis a questionwhichwe deem it unneo- essary for usto determine. The most that the judgmentoould establish, relativeto the mibor's residence,was that he was a residentof !&me8 at the tims of the prooeeding. And, even if the judgmentis bindingupoa Hon. Homer P. Rainey,page 3 (O-1579)
the Ohiversity,he is a non-residentwithin the meaning of Article 26540 until he has r&sidedwithin the State for twelvemonths. As we have seen, his residence%a8 with h's mother,a non-resident,at least up tc the time of the judment.
Yours wry truly
ATTOBNEY GENSPALOF TEX4S
By /s/~H$-schieJohnson
HirsobieJohnson Assistant
APPROVED OpinionCamnittee A1TORREYGBSER&LOFTEXAS ByBWB chairman