Opinion ID: 1789071
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court has continuing jurisdiction over child custody and visitation based on the children's best interests pursuant to Minnesota's version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

Text: 4. This Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction over child custody and visitation (/Texas insists on exercising jurisdiction pursuant to an appellate court decision. [2] (emphasis added). In an unpublished opinion, the Minnesota court of appeals stated that, [w]e affirm with the understanding that the [Minnesota] trial court will ascertain the ultimate resolution of custody and visitation issues in Texas. If no further appeal is sought [in Texas] within the time permitted, or if, upon appeal, the Texas Supreme Court upholds the Texas Court of Appeals, Minnesota shall exercise jurisdiction of custody and visitation issues to assure that a jurisdictional vacuum does not occur. (emphasis added). By the terms of the PKPA, the necessary predicate for Texas to exercise jurisdiction over this suit is for the Minnesota court to unconditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction. In my opinion, the Texas court of appeals correctly determined that the recitations in the Minnesota trial court were a praiseworthy attempt by that court to shorten the present period of uncertainty by deferring to our decision as to the legal ramifications in this case. 798 S.W.2d at 297. Because the Minnesota court did not decline to exercise jurisdiction over the child support, custody, visitation, and visitation expense issues, Texas does not have jurisdiction over these issues.