Case Name: In re Russell POWELL
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2003-11-06
Citations: 121 S.W.3d 846
Docket Number: No. 09-03-394 CV
Parties: In re Russell POWELL.
Judges: Before McKEITHEN, C.J., BURGESS and GAULTNEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 121
Pages: 846–849

Head Matter:
In re Russell POWELL.
No. 09-03-394 CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.
Submitted Sept. 18, 2003.
Decided Nov. 6, 2003.
Jack Lawrence, Beaumont, for appellant.
Bevil B. Wright, Silsbee, for appellee.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., BURGESS and GAULTNEY, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
DON BURGESS, Justice.
Russell Powell seeks a writ of mandamus against Judge Earl B. Stover, III, of the 88th District Court of Hardin County, Texas. Powell complains of the order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the trial judge's opinion letter denying his plea in abatement. Powell asks this Court to direct the judge to vacate the order and letter, and to transfer the case, or the portions dismissed, to the Chancery Court of Hawkins County, Tennessee.
Both children, D.B.P. and D.T.P. were born in Texas. The younger child, D.T.P., has never resided anywhere but Texas; therefore Texas is his home state. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.102(7) (Vernon 2002). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss or plea in abatement in regards to D.T.P.
D.B.P. was born in Texas and lived here until he was nearly five years old, when the family moved to Tennessee. After approximately ten months, Sonia Powell returned to Texas with D.B.P.; she was seven months pregnant with D.T.P. Sonia's testimony raised a fact issue whether the time spent in Tennessee was a temporary absence. The time in Tennessee, therefore would be considered time D.B.P. resided in Texas for the purpose of determining home state jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.102(7) (Vernon 2002), and Lemley v. Miller, 932 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, no writ). Consequently, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying Powell's motion to dismiss or plea in abatement in regards to D.B.P.
In his brief, Powell complains of the trial judge's failure to communicate with the Tennessee court. We note that sections 152.110(d) and (f) provide:
(d) If proceedings involving the same parties are pending simultaneously in a court of this state and a court of another state, the court of this state shall inform the other court of the simultaneous proceedings. The court of this state shall request that the other court hold the proceeding in that court in abeyance until the court in this state conducts a hearing to determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the proceeding.
(f) Except as otherwise provided in Subsection (e), a record must be made of any communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.
See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.110(d), (f) (Vernon 2002). It appears from the hearing on the motion for temporary orders that the trial judge was aware of the requirements and we presume he will comply with the statute.
For all these reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
WRIT DENIED.
GAULTNEY, J" dissented and filed opinion.