## Facts

- A Texas court entered a divorce decree in Collin County, Texas, and later an agreed modification order granting the father primary custody and the exclusive right to set the children’s primary residence.
- Shortly after the modification order, the father moved with the children from Texas to other states over several years, ultimately residing in Colorado.
- The mother remained in Collin County, Texas throughout and exercised visitation in Texas, including extended stays by the children (sometimes about a month).
- After the father pursued employment that could relocate the children to Taipei, Taiwan, the mother filed in the original Texas court to modify possession provisions and sought to restrain relocation outside the United States; the trial court issued a restraining order.
- The father moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals, on the father’s mandamus petition, directed the trial court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The mother sought mandamus relief in the Supreme Court of Texas to vacate the appellate order compelling dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the original Texas court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over custody/possession modification proceedings under Texas Family Code § 152.202(a)(1) despite the children living outside Texas for more than five years.
2. Whether mandamus relief was proper to correct the appellate court’s order directing dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas granted mandamus relief.
- The Court held the Texas trial court retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction under Texas Family Code § 152.202(a)(1).
- The Court ordered the court of appeals to vacate its order directing the trial court to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court concluded the relator lacked an adequate remedy by appeal from the compelled dismissal, and the court of appeals abused its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas Family Code § 152.202(a)(1), the issuing state loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction only if a Texas court determines both: (1) no significant connection exists between Texas and the child (or child and a parent/person acting as a parent), and (2) substantial evidence is no longer available in Texas regarding the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
- Exclusive continuing jurisdiction is not defeated merely because the child has lived elsewhere for years or another state could qualify as the child’s home state.
- A noncustodial parent’s continued residence in Texas, coupled with the children’s regular and extended visitation in Texas, can constitute a significant connection with Texas.
- “Substantial evidence” focuses on whether meaningful evidence remains available in Texas (including evidence concerning the child’s relationship with the Texas-resident parent), not whether another state may have more evidence.
- Mandamus is available to remedy an appellate court order compelling jurisdictional dismissal when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal and the order rests on a clear abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the modification dispute because the statutory conditions for losing jurisdiction were not met, and it issued mandamus directing the court of appeals to vacate its order requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.


In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004)