This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a custody dispute over a child, Elizabeth, following the death of her father and the incarceration of her mother in Texas. The mother had moved between Texas and New Mexico multiple times before being arrested and convicted of first-degree murder in Texas. While the mother was incarcerated, custody proceedings were initiated in both Texas and New Mexico, with the paternal grandmother seeking custody in Texas and the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) taking protective custody of Elizabeth and her sibling, Jessica (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- Texas District Court, July 19, 2001: Issued a custody order appointing both parents as joint managing conservators of Elizabeth, with the mother allowed to establish the child’s primary residence in specific Texas counties (para 2).
- Texas District Court, January 21, 2003: Dismissed the custody case for lack of prosecution (para 5).
- Texas District Court, August 6, 2003: Issued temporary orders appointing the paternal grandmother as temporary sole managing conservator of Elizabeth (para 5).
- New Mexico District Court, June 25, 2003: CYFD filed an abuse and neglect petition and took protective custody of Elizabeth and Jessica (para 6).
- Texas District Court, February 4, 2005: Granted the paternal grandmother’s request to modify the custody order, appointing her as sole managing conservator and asserting exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (CYFD): Argued that the Texas court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA when the father died, and the mother and child moved to New Mexico. They contended that the mother’s incarceration in Texas did not constitute residence under the UCCJEA (paras 14, 16).
- Appellee (Paternal Grandmother): Asserted that the Texas court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that the New Mexico court lacked jurisdiction to make custody determinations (paras 9, 13).
Legal Issues
- Did the Texas court retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after the father’s death and the mother’s relocation to New Mexico?
- Does the mother’s incarceration in Texas constitute residence under the UCCJEA?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the Texas court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and that the New Mexico court lacked subject matter jurisdiction (para 20).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The Court held that under the UCCJEA, the Texas court retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction because it had issued the initial custody order in 2001, and no determination was made by either the Texas or New Mexico courts that the mother and child no longer resided in Texas (paras 13-14). The Court rejected CYFD’s argument that the Texas court lost jurisdiction when the father died and the mother moved to New Mexico, emphasizing that the UCCJEA requires a judicial determination to terminate exclusive jurisdiction (para 14).
The Court also found that the mother’s incarceration in Texas constituted residence under the UCCJEA, as the statute does not require volitional residence or domicile. The Court reasoned that requiring volition would undermine the UCCJEA’s purpose of discouraging jurisdictional conflicts and promoting stability in custody determinations (paras 16-18).
Finally, the Court noted that the UCCJEA prioritizes jurisdictional clarity over substantive determinations of the child’s best interests, and the Texas court’s jurisdictional authority was consistent with the UCCJEA’s provisions (para 19).