UCCJEA Home State Requires Six Consecutive Months | In re A.M.K. (2026)

In the Interest of A.M.K., A Child, 14-25-00656-CV, May 14, 2026.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1, Galveston County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas did not have initial child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because the child had not lived in Texas for six consecutive months immediately before the SAPCR was filed. The Fourteenth Court held that even treating the child’s departure to Georgia as a temporary absence, the child’s maximum Texas residence was only 5 months and 20 days, which is insufficient under Texas Family Code §§ 152.102(7) and 152.201(a)(1).

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters directly to Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCRs, divorces involving children, and interstate custody fights. The case is a sharp reminder that UCCJEA jurisdiction is not flexible, cannot be supplied by equities, and cannot be cured by rounding up a residency period that falls short of six consecutive months. In practice, this affects filing strategy, emergency-order requests, forum-selection arguments, and the timing of pleadings when a parent or child has recently relocated. It also underscores that even if a Texas court could arguably consider significant-connection jurisdiction, the court may still decline to exercise jurisdiction on inconvenient-forum grounds in favor of the state with deeper evidentiary ties.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The child, A.M.K., was born in April 2024. After spending approximately seven months in Georgia, the parents and child moved to Galveston County, Texas. On May 3, 2025, Mother took the child to Georgia, initially representing that the trip was only to visit family. On May 14, 2025, she informed Father that neither she nor the child would return to Texas.

Father filed a SAPCR on May 27, 2025, seeking conservatorship, possession, and support orders. Mother moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, contending Texas was not the child’s home state under the UCCJEA and that Georgia, where the child had lived previously and where Mother had returned, was the proper forum.

An associate judge initially found that Texas qualified as the child’s home state. Mother sought de novo review. After the de novo hearing, the presiding judge reversed, dismissed the SAPCR for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and also determined that Texas was an inconvenient forum and Georgia the more appropriate forum. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas was the child’s “home state” under Texas Family Code §§ 152.102(7) and 152.201(a)(1) when the child had lived in Texas less than six consecutive months before commencement of the SAPCR.
• Whether a claimed temporary absence from Texas could satisfy the six-month home-state requirement where the child’s maximum Texas residence was only 5 months and 20 days.
• Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the SAPCR for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Texas was an inconvenient forum and that Georgia was the more appropriate forum under Texas Family Code § 152.207.
• Whether the absence of requested findings altered the appellate analysis.

Rules Applied

The court applied the UCCJEA as codified in Texas Family Code Chapter 152, focusing primarily on the following provisions:

• Texas Family Code § 152.201(a): sets out the exclusive bases for initial child-custody jurisdiction.
• Texas Family Code § 152.201(b): makes § 152.201 the exclusive jurisdictional basis for a Texas court to make an initial child-custody determination.
• Texas Family Code § 152.102(5): defines “commencement” as the filing of the first pleading.
• Texas Family Code § 152.102(7): defines “home state” as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement of the proceeding, with temporary absence included as part of the period.
• Texas Family Code § 152.207: authorizes a court with jurisdiction under Chapter 152 to decline to exercise it if Texas is an inconvenient forum and another state is more appropriate.

The court also relied on familiar UCCJEA principles from Texas case law:

• Subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is reviewed de novo.
• Construction of the UCCJEA’s home-state provision is also reviewed de novo.
• The relevant measuring date for home-state jurisdiction is the date of commencement.
• A trial court’s inconvenient-forum determination under § 152.207 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• When findings of fact and conclusions of law are not timely requested, appellate courts imply all necessary findings in support of the judgment.

Application

The court’s analysis was straightforward and text-driven. It began with the UCCJEA’s home-state definition and measured the child’s time in Texas backward from the filing date of the SAPCR, because commencement of the proceeding is the operative date under the statute. On that record, the child had not been in Texas for the required six consecutive months.

Critically, the court gave Father the benefit of the most favorable framing available to him: it assumed that the period from May 3, when Mother left Texas with the child, until May 27, when Father filed suit, could be treated as a temporary absence. Even with that assumption, the child’s maximum Texas residence totaled only 5 months and 20 days. That arithmetic ended the home-state inquiry. The temporary-absence concept can preserve continuity during a qualifying six-month period; it cannot manufacture the missing days when the child never reached six consecutive months in Texas in the first place.

The court then addressed Father’s effort to invoke significant-connection jurisdiction under § 152.201(a)(2). Rather than definitively resolving whether those contacts might have supported jurisdiction in the abstract, the court held that the argument did not change the outcome because the trial court had also declined jurisdiction under the inconvenient-forum provision. On that point, the appellate court emphasized facts tying the case to Georgia: Mother and the child were living there when suit was filed, the child had spent more total time in Georgia than in Texas, and Mother’s extended family witnesses were located there. Given those circumstances, and given the absence of timely requested findings requiring more granular explanation, the court implied the findings necessary to support the trial court’s decision that Georgia was the more appropriate forum.

Holding

The Fourteenth Court held that Texas was not the child’s home state under Texas Family Code §§ 152.102(7) and 152.201(a)(1). The statute requires at least six consecutive months of residence in Texas immediately before commencement of the proceeding, and the child’s maximum possible Texas residence—counting the period after departure as a temporary absence—was only 5 months and 20 days. That shortfall was fatal to initial home-state jurisdiction.

The court further held that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper. Because the UCCJEA provides the exclusive jurisdictional basis for an initial child-custody determination, the trial court did not err in refusing to proceed where Texas did not qualify as the home state.

The court also upheld the trial court’s inconvenient-forum determination under § 152.207. Even assuming Father could frame a significant-connection argument, the appellate court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Georgia was the more appropriate forum based on the child’s history there, the parties’ circumstances at filing, and the concentration of relevant witnesses and evidence in Georgia.

Practical Application

For practitioners, the principal lesson is that filing too early can be jurisdictionally fatal. In interstate custody disputes, counsel should calculate the six-month period with precision from the date of commencement, not from anticipated filing windows, verbal separation dates, or assumed temporary absences. If the child has not lived in Texas for six consecutive months, do not assume the court can bridge the gap through equitable arguments or by treating an out-of-state departure as temporary.

The case is particularly relevant in emergency-separation situations, relocation disputes, and unmarried-parent SAPCR filings. A parent who remains in Texas after the other parent leaves with the child may have strong equitable facts, but those facts do not alter the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional prerequisites. Counsel should instead evaluate whether another state is the home state, whether temporary emergency jurisdiction may be available under a different statutory provision, and whether a prompt filing in the home state is strategically superior.

The opinion also warns against overreliance on significant-connection jurisdiction. Even if a plausible argument exists under § 152.201(a)(2), the trial court may still decline to act under § 152.207 if another state is the more appropriate forum. That means litigators should develop the inconvenient-forum record early, including witness location, documentary evidence, domestic-violence allegations, financial burdens, and the comparative ability of each state’s courts to adjudicate the case expeditiously.

In divorce cases involving children, this issue can affect much more than conservatorship. A mistaken assumption about custody jurisdiction may distort the entire filing strategy, delay temporary orders, increase costs, and create parallel proceedings. Counsel should separate questions of divorce jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and UCCJEA child-custody jurisdiction rather than treating them as interchangeable.

Checklists

Pre-Filing UCCJEA Home-State Analysis

• Identify the exact commencement date of the intended proceeding.
• Count backward from that date to determine whether the child lived in Texas for at least six consecutive months immediately before filing.
• Verify the child’s physical presence dates with objective evidence such as leases, medical records, daycare records, travel records, and text messages.
• Determine whether any claimed absence was truly temporary, and whether counting it still leaves a full six-month qualifying period.
• Analyze whether another state qualifies as the child’s home state instead.
• Distinguish between home-state jurisdiction, significant-connection jurisdiction, and temporary emergency jurisdiction.

Evidence to Prove or Disprove “Temporary Absence”

• Gather departure and return dates with specificity.
• Collect communications showing the stated purpose of travel.
• Obtain travel itineraries, tickets, and lodging records.
• Preserve texts, emails, or recordings reflecting whether the move was temporary or permanent.
• Document where the child’s clothing, medical care, school/daycare arrangements, and daily life remained centered.
• Calculate the child’s total Texas residence both with and without the disputed absence included.

Building the Inconvenient-Forum Record

• Identify where the child is currently residing.
• Map the location of nonparty witnesses, especially family members, caregivers, and medical providers.
• Assess whether domestic violence allegations exist and which state can best protect the parties and child.
• Compare the states’ access to documentary evidence.
• Address the parties’ financial ability to litigate in each forum.
• Evaluate the distance between forums and practical burdens on testimony.
• Determine whether another state already has proceedings pending or can move faster procedurally.
• Request findings when appropriate to preserve error and sharpen appellate review.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problem

• Do not file a Texas SAPCR based on a rough estimate that the child has “basically” been here six months.
• Do not assume a temporary-absence argument can make up a mathematical shortfall.
• Do not conflate equitable facts with jurisdictional facts.
• Do not neglect a parallel analysis of the likely home state outside Texas.
• Do not overlook § 152.207 simply because you believe Texas can assert jurisdiction under another subsection.
• Do not fail to timely request findings of fact and conclusions of law when forum analysis or factual disputes matter.

Strategic Response When Texas Is Short of Six Months

• Evaluate immediate filing in the actual home state.
• Consider whether temporary emergency jurisdiction is available if there is imminent risk to the child.
• Preserve all evidence bearing on abuse, coercion, or wrongful retention.
• Advise the client on timing risks before filing in Texas.
• Coordinate with out-of-state counsel early if another forum is likely to control.
• Reassess filing strategy if waiting to meet the six-month mark is legally possible and tactically sound.

Citation

In the Interest of A.M.K., A Child, No. 14-25-00656-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 14, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~4beeafaf-644e-406d-96bc-5159f269c45c~~