Court Opinion

ID: 9683521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:30:38.095375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:29.613322
License: Public Domain

GONZALEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
This case turns on two questions. First, did Minnesota decline to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute? And second, did sufficient minimum contacts exist for the Texas court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state parent who merely visited our state to see his children? The answer to both questions must be “yes” in order for today’s opinion to stand. Conflicting language from the Minnesota courts’ decisions clouds the answer to the first question. The trial court conditionally declined to exercise jurisdiction, but the appellate court characterized that action as a declination. Nothing, however, obscures the answer to the second question. Federal constitutional requirements of due process should lead us to no other conclusion but that the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the visiting parent by Texas is unreasonable.
The states of Minnesota and Texas have concurrent jurisdiction over the custody, support and visitation of the children. After a hearing, a Minnesota trial court concluded that it was a convenient forum to resolve the dispute between the parties.1 The Minnesota trial court recognized the potential for conflicting orders in this case and wisely decided to defer exercising jurisdiction over these issues to ascertain whether Texas would insist on exercising its own jurisdiction over this case. A Texas intermediate court of appeals reviewed this matter and, in my opinion, correctly concluded that Minnesota had deferred rather than declined jurisdiction within the meaning of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, .28 U.S.C. § 1738A. 798 S.W.2d. at 297. Our Court disagrees and holds that Minnesota declined jurisdiction. More egregiously, our Court implies that any parent who comes to Texas to visit his or her children and consults the “want ads” or stops by the Employment Office while on one of these visitation trips has engaged in sufficient “minimum contacts” to become subject to the personal jurisdiction of Texas courts. All of this gives new meaning to the phrase: “Don’t mess with Texas!” I dissent.
I. CUSTODY AND VISITATION
The Court acknowledges that Minnesota has subject matter jurisdiction over these *92same issues and does not dispute the finding by the Minnesota trial court that these issues could be conveniently resolved in Minnesota. Nonetheless, our Court holds that Texas courts have jurisdiction over the child custody and visitation issues in this case under the Texas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), Tex.Fam. Code § 11.51 et seq. (1992), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. At 87. While I agree that Texas courts have jurisdiction over these issues under the UCCJA, I disagree with our Court’s interpretation and application of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act.
The PKPA provides that:
A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if—
(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and
(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.
28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f) (emphasis added). The Court concludes that Minnesota declined jurisdiction; therefore, Texas may properly exercise jurisdiction to modify the child custody and visitation rights. At 89. Because Minnesota did not unconditionally decline to exercise jurisdiction over these issues, I disagree.
The Minnesota trial court entered an “Order Retaining Jurisdiction.” It stated in its conclusions of law that:
1. This Court has jurisdiction over all dissolution matters, including child support and visitation expenses.
2. 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.
******
4. This Court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction over child custody and visitation if 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.
II. SUPPORT AND VISITATION
I agree with our Court that “a valid judgment for child support or visitation expenses may be rendered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.” At 83. Therefore, in order *93for a Texas court to render a binding judgment on the child support and/or visitation expense issues, minimum contacts must exist. This Court determined that minimum contacts were present because the father made “numerous trips” to Texas to visit his children and “sought employment in Amarillo.” At 86. The Court is impressed that the father spent four hours with doctors in the Amarillo Diagnostic Clinic and made an inquiry about job openings. The Court also places significance on the fact that the father “spent two hours making the rounds with another doctor at the clinic.” At 86.3 In my opinion, these are insufficient contacts to confer personal jurisdiction to Texas courts over the father.
In Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 366 (Tex.1975), we held that even though a state may exercise jurisdiction over a cause, the assumption of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must not offend that defendant’s due process rights. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), the United States Supreme Court stated that there must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Minimum contacts with the forum state are required so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158. An essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant’s activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in that state. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978).
In Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 230 (Tex.1991), this Court clarified the personal jurisdiction formula to “ensure compliance with federal constitutional requirements of due process.” We stated that “[gjeneral jurisdiction may be asserted when the cause of action does not arise from or relate to the nonresident defendant’s purposeful conduct within the forum state but there are continuous and systematic contacts between the nonresident defendant and the forum state.” Id. at 228 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872-73, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). (emphasis added). Furthermore, when general jurisdiction is alleged, “the minimum contacts analysis is more demanding and requires a showing of substantial activity in the forum state.” Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, in order for Texas to properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the father, he must have “purposefully established minimum contacts” with Texas. Id. Additionally, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must “comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Id. at 231.
It is undisputed that the father’s main purpose for coming to Texas was to visit his children. The fact that he made a job inquiry, in my view, does not alter the primary purpose of the visits — to see his children.
The act of visiting children pursuant to a child visitation agreement should not subject a parent to the jurisdiction of the state in which the custodial parent decides to reside. To find personal jurisdiction in a State merely because the custodial parent was residing there, would discourage parents from entering into reasonable visitation agreements. This result “would discourage voluntary child custody agreements and subject a non-custodial parent to suit in any jurisdiction where the custodial parent chose to reside.” Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474, 329 S.E.2d 663, 666 (1985) (citing Kulko, 436 U.S. at 93, 98 S.Ct. at *941697). Furthermore, a parent would be faced with the dilemma of visiting the child and subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the forum state or refraining from such contacts with the child due to the fear of being forced to litigate there.” Miller, 329 S.E.2d at 667. “The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State.” Hanson 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239-40.4
In my opinion, Texas cannot properly assert personal jurisdiction over the father, because he did not establish continuous or systematic contacts with Texas in order to meet the minimum contact requirement set forth in Guardian Royal. Furthermore, the exercise of personal jurisdiction fails to meet the second requirement of Guardian Royal because such exercise does not comport with fair play or substantial justice.
CONCLUSION
Because the Minnesota court did not unconditionally decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the suit, but merely deferred the exercise of its jurisdiction pending the resolution of the Texas case, Texas cannot properly assert jurisdiction over the child custody and visitation issues under the PKPA. Furthermore, because the father has not established minimum contacts with Texas, Texas should not assert personal jurisdiction over him. Finally, there is absolutely no reason for Texas to insist on exercising jurisdiction over this case; in the future, some of our sister states may not be as accommodating. In the long run, it is the children who will suffer.

. The following factors show that the parties have substantial contacts in Minnesota: (1) the parties were married in Minnesota; (2) they lived in Minnesota until their divorce; (3) the children of the marriage were born in Minnesota; (4) the children have relatives in Minnesota; (5) the father lives in Minnesota; and (6) his family and friends who would testify on his behalf live in Minnesota. The patties stipulated that Minnesota would retain jurisdiction over all issues dealing with custody, visitation and support as long as one of the parents resided in Minnesota.

. In the Minnesota trial court’s memorandum of facts accompanying the order retaining jurisdiction, the trial judge noted that "Minnesota requires a formal action rejecting jurisdiction by the state with continuing jurisdiction before Minnesota will modify that state’s custody decree or order." The findings state that “this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction over child custody and visitation rights if Texas continues to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to an appellate court decision.... Until that time, however, this Court will continue to exercise its jurisdiction.’’ (emphasis added).

. The father testified that he did not "formally even begin an application process for a job ... [and that] there is no formal effort underway for [seeking] employment [in Amarillo].” He stated that he "merely checked out the possibility of what the quality of the job would be.” Furthermore, on the other contact which the court finds significant, the father merely "watched" as he accompanied another doctor making his rounds.

. Other states have also held that a noncustodial parent’s exercise of visitation rights does not subject that parent to in personam jurisdiction. See Minkoff v. Abrams, 539 So.2d 306 (Ala.Civ.App.1988) (court found that minimum contacts did not exist although father traveled to Alabama and remained for four days and thereafter traveled to Alabama three times to bring his children to Georgia pursuant to his visitation rights); St. Hilaire v. St. Hilaire, 41 Conn.Sup. 429, 581 A.2d 752 (1990) (fact that father entered Connecticut to pick up and return children during visitation periods along with attending the children’s dance recitals, graduations, school and sports activities in Connecticut was insufficient to establish minimum contacts with the state); Buck v. Heavner, 93 N.C.App. 142, 377 S.E.2d 75 (1989) (the exercise of personal jurisdiction on the basis of child visitation violated due process because "the fact that a defendant makes trips to North Carolina in order to exercise his visitation rights cannot supply the necessary minimum contacts for the purposes of a child support action”); Roderick v. Roderick, 776 S.W.2d 533 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989) (court held that even if fact that father traveled to Tennessee to exercise visitation rights along with the fact that he was married in Tennessee and once held a Tennessee driver’s license were proven, "they do not warrant requiring [the father] to defend himself in Tennessee’s courts”).