in Re: Anthony R. Sanders

DENY; and Opinion Filed May 17, 2016.

S In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00332-CV IN RE ANTHONY R. SANDERS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-56252-2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Relator, father of a nine-year old child who is subject of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR), contends the trial court in which the SAPCR is pending improperly denied his plea to the jurisdiction. In this petition for writ of mandamus, father requests we vacate the trial court’s order denying his plea to the jurisdiction, vacate any temporary orders for child support, and enter an order dismissing mother’s SAPCR petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Background

Father and mother’s child was born while they were married and living in Colorado. Father and mother were divorced in 2008. In early 2012, mother and the child moved to Texas. Father contends his residence has remained in Colorado at all times since the divorce. In early 2014, father and mother entered into a stipulated order in Colorado addressing custody and certain expenses related to the child. In October 2015, mother filed a SAPCR in Texas seeking to require father to pay child support. Father contends the controlling child support order was issued in the state of Colorado, and because he still resides in Colorado, only a court in Colorado may modify the child support obligation. See Office of Atty. Gen. of Tex. v. Long, 401 S.W.3d 911, 913 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“Once a court having jurisdiction enters a support decree, that court becomes the only tribunal authorized to modify the decree for as long as it retains jurisdiction. A court retains its jurisdiction under the [Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)] if at least one person affected by the decree still resides in the issuing state.”) (internal citations omitted); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 159.205(a) (West Supp. 2015). 1 Mother asserts father has sufficient contacts with Texas to be subject to personal jurisdiction and that the order of the Colorado court is not a child support order under the UIFSA. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 159.001–.901 (West 2014 & Supp. 2015).

Analysis The trial court’s written order overruling father’s plea to the jurisdiction is the basis for father’s petition for writ of mandamus. 2 Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

The trial court necessarily had jurisdiction to decide the issue of father’s plea to the jurisdiction because courts always have jurisdiction to determine their own jurisdiction. Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2009). Rulings on pleas to the jurisdiction are considered incidental rulings. See In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316, 320 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re State Bar of Tex., 113 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); In re Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, 982 S.W.2d 371, 375 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding); Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Walker, 787 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding). Absent extraordinary circumstances, appeal provides an adequate remedy for addressing incidental rulings, such as a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. See In re First Mercury Ins. Co., 437 S.W.3d 34, 38 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2014, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Thompson, Coe, Cousins, & Irons, LLP, 212 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2007, orig. proceeding)). Extraordinary circumstances do not exist merely because failure to grant mandamus review would cause hardship to the parties. In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d at 321. Rather Texas courts grant mandamus relief, “because special, unique circumstances mandate[ ] the Court’s intervention.” Id. Such a special and unique circumstance that may justify mandamus review is a jurisdictional dispute between a Texas court and the court of another state that has led to conflicting child custody orders. Geary v. Peavy, 878 S.W.2d 602, 603 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding); see also In re State Bar, 113 S.W.3d at 734 (exception to general rule that incidental rulings, including pleas to the jurisdiction, will not be reviewed by mandamus, arises when one court renders an order that directly interferes with another court’s jurisdiction). 3 However, here there are no currently conflicting written orders concerning either child support or custody.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE

160332F.P05