Court Opinion

ID: 9771212
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:37:04.302097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:13.957454
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority has denied Relator’s Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus holding that the Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. I disagree. The writ of mandamus has been available to compel mandatory transfer in suits affecting the parent-child relationship in analogous situations. In Proffer v. Yates, 734 S.W.2d 671, 673 (Tex.1987), the Supreme Court granted mandamus relief to compel transfer of venue in a child-support case to a county where the child had resided for over six months. There the court held:
And remedy by appeal, though available, is frequently inadequate to protect the rights of parents and children to a trial in a particular venue. Parents and children who have a right under the mandatory venue provisions to venue in a particular county should not be forced to go through a trial that is for naught. Justice demands a speedy resolution of child custody and child support issues.

Id.

Proffer is cited by the Supreme Court in Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Walker, 787 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex.1990), as a recognized exception to the general rule relied on by the majority in denying mandamus relief herein. In addition, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act lists as its general purposes:
(1) avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody that have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being;
[[Image here]]
(5) deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards;
(6) avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this state insofar as feasible;
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 11.51(a)(1), (5), (6) (Vernon 1986).
I agree with the majority that, based on the record before us, Indiana is the “home state” of the child. I would grant Relator’s requested relief because I feel we should expedite the process of getting this matter to the “home state” of the child without requiring the parties and the child to endure shifting the child back and forth during the appellate process. See id. § 11.74. I do not think it should be a determining factor that Relator attacks the order in which the court found it had jurisdiction to decide child custody in this matter instead of attacking the agreed temporary custody order, because the court’s assumption of jurisdiction underlies *562its approval of the agreed temporary order of April 27.
Because I feel the UCCJA mandates that we avoid lengthy appeals in matters such as this, I would grant the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and suggest the expeditious resolution of the child custody matter in the child’s “home state”.