UCCJEA Inconvenient Forum Denial Affirms Texas Jurisdiction | In re S.S.W. (2026)

In the Interest of S.S.W., a Child, 05-25-00649-CV, August 06, 2026.

On appeal from 494th District Court, Collin County, Texas

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a Texas court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code chapter 152 may deny an inconvenient-forum challenge and retain a modification case, even when the child has been living in another state. In In re S.S.W., the record supported Texas continuing exclusive jurisdiction, and the mother did not establish that the UCCJEA factors required Texas to decline jurisdiction in favor of California.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this opinion is a practical reminder that a child’s out-of-state residence does not, by itself, divest Texas of modification jurisdiction once a Texas court has acquired continuing exclusive jurisdiction. In relocation disputes, modification suits, conservatorship fights, and contested medical-decision cases, practitioners must separately analyze: first, whether Texas still has continuing exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code section 152.202, and second, whether Texas should nevertheless decline to exercise that jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under chapter 152. This distinction matters in high-conflict custody litigation because parties often conflate “home state” concepts with continuing-jurisdiction principles and assume the child’s residence elsewhere is dispositive when it is not.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The underlying suit arose from a Collin County parent-child relationship order signed in September 2021. Mother later filed in the same Texas court in December 2023, seeking both declaratory relief and modification. Her theory was that Texas should step aside under the UCCJEA because the child, S.S.W., had lived in California with Mother since birth, the child was receiving medical and psychiatric care there, Father allegedly no longer resided in Texas, and many of Father’s periods of possession were occurring outside Texas.

Mother’s requested relief was strategically significant. She did not merely contest forum; she also asked the Texas court to modify conservatorship rights in her favor, including the unrestricted right to designate the child’s primary residence, exclusive authority over medical and psychological decisions, educational decision-making authority, reallocation of travel costs, and increased child support. Father answered and later counter-petitioned for a far more substantial modification, asking to become the conservator with the right to designate the child’s primary residence and with expanded authority over medical and educational decisions.

At trial, the inconvenient-forum and jurisdictional questions were front and center. The trial court expressly denied Mother’s request for a declaratory judgment that Texas was an inconvenient forum and stated that it would remain the court of continuing exclusive jurisdiction. The evidence showed Mother was living in California and that the child had developmental and speech-related issues. The parties were at an impasse over treatment decisions. The record also reflected substantial co-parenting conflict, including Mother’s refusal at times to allow Father access, failures in communication about the child, and evidence the trial court evidently viewed as bearing on best interest and co-parenting capacity.

Father testified that he lived in Argyle, Texas, with his wife and family. That fact was critical to the continuing-jurisdiction analysis under Family Code section 152.202. After trial, the court signed one order denying Mother’s declaratory-judgment request and specifically finding that Texas was a convenient forum and had subject matter jurisdiction. It then signed the modification order granting Father the right to designate the child’s primary residence. Mother appealed, challenging subject matter jurisdiction, the inconvenient-forum ruling, and the best-interest determination supporting the change in primary residence.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to hear the modification suit.
• Whether the trial court erred in denying Mother’s request to have Texas decline jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under Family Code chapter 152.
• Whether the trial court erred in modifying conservatorship to give Father the right to designate the child’s primary residence.

Rules Applied

The court applied the UCCJEA as codified in Texas Family Code chapter 152, with particular emphasis on continuing exclusive jurisdiction under section 152.202. Under that statute, Texas retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction over a child-custody determination until either:

1. A Texas court determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with Texas and that substantial evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships is no longer available in Texas; or
2. A Texas court or a court of another state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in Texas.

The court also relied on the settled principle, reflected in In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding), that if either a significant connection remains or substantial evidence remains available in Texas, continuing exclusive jurisdiction persists.

On standard of review, subject matter jurisdiction was reviewed de novo. The court also recognized that inconvenient-forum determinations under the UCCJEA are not controlled simply by the child’s residence in another state; rather, the trial court must evaluate the statutory forum factors in chapter 152 and determine whether they warrant Texas declining to exercise otherwise valid jurisdiction.

Application

The appellate court’s reasoning turned on the structural distinction between jurisdiction and forum. Mother’s position appears to have treated California residence as the dominant fact, but that was not enough under section 152.202. The trial court had entered the original Texas custody order in 2021, so the operative question was not whether California had become the child’s home state in the abstract; it was whether Texas had lost continuing exclusive jurisdiction under the statutory tests.

That argument failed because the record supported the continued residence of at least one parent in Texas. Father testified that he lived in Argyle, Texas, and his wife corroborated that Texas had always been home and that their address was in Argyle. That evidence alone substantially undermined any argument under section 152.202(a)(2) that neither parent presently resided in Texas. It also supported the notion that the child and one parent retained a significant connection with Texas, particularly given Father’s continuing assertion of parental rights under the Texas order and the litigation itself arising from rights established in Texas.

The inconvenient-forum challenge likewise failed because the record did not compel a conclusion that Texas had to decline jurisdiction. Mother initiated modification proceedings in the Texas court while simultaneously asking that court to declare itself inconvenient. The evidence showed that Texas remained a meaningful locus for adjudicating the parties’ parental rights, particularly where the original order was entered there, Father lived there, and the court was addressing an ongoing conservatorship and access dispute with direct implications for future possession, decision-making, and the child’s residence. On this record, the trial court was entitled to conclude that the chapter 152 factors did not require deference to California.

The case also demonstrates how forum arguments can be weakened by the surrounding merits evidence. The trial court expressly commented that its ruling was based on Mother’s inability to place the child’s best interest above personal grievances. The appellate court’s affirmance reflects deference to trial-level factfinding where the forum challenge is interwoven with evidence about co-parenting, denial of access, communication failures, and competing modification requests.

Holding

The court held that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the modification proceeding. Because the Texas court had entered the earlier custody order and the evidence supported continuing exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code section 152.202, Texas was not divested of jurisdiction merely because the child had been residing in California.

The court also held that the trial court did not err in denying Mother’s inconvenient-forum request. A Texas court with continuing exclusive jurisdiction may retain the case unless the chapter 152 factors warrant declining jurisdiction, and the record here did not require that result. The evidence supported the conclusion that Texas remained a proper forum.

Finally, the court affirmed the modification order appointing Father as the conservator with the right to designate the child’s primary residence. Although the opinion snippet provided here focuses primarily on jurisdiction and forum, the appellate disposition confirms that the trial court’s best-interest determination and resulting modification were upheld.

Practical Application

This case is especially useful in interstate modification litigation where one side attempts to convert a relocation fact pattern into a jurisdictional defect. The lesson is straightforward: if your client still resides in Texas and the original Texas order remains in place, begin with continuing exclusive jurisdiction, not with the child’s current ZIP code. The child’s out-of-state medical providers, school records, or therapy records may be relevant to forum analysis, but they do not automatically negate Texas jurisdiction.

For movants seeking to keep the case in Texas, In re S.S.W. supports a disciplined two-step argument. First, establish continuing exclusive jurisdiction through current Texas residence, significant connections, and Texas-based evidence or witnesses. Second, resist the inconvenient-forum challenge by showing that the statutory factors do not compel transfer or abatement in favor of another state. The existence of some evidence in the foreign state will rarely be enough by itself.

For parties seeking to push the case out of Texas, the opinion is a cautionary example of an underpowered UCCJEA strategy. Counsel should not assume that proving the child lives elsewhere or receives services elsewhere will carry the day. The statute requires more. The better approach is to build a complete record directed to the actual chapter 152 factors and, where possible, obtain a determination that the statutory predicates for ending continuing exclusive jurisdiction have been met.

The case also has strategic implications for pleading. Mother sought affirmative modification relief in Texas while also asking the same court to stand down as an inconvenient forum. That is not inherently fatal, but it creates tension. Litigators should carefully frame such pleadings so the client is not perceived as invoking Texas jurisdiction for favorable merits relief while simultaneously disclaiming Texas as an appropriate forum.

In conservatorship modification cases involving educational, medical, and psychological decision-making, this opinion also reinforces that forum skirmishes often bleed into best-interest findings. Conduct showing gatekeeping, obstruction, refusal to facilitate possession, or inflammatory communication may influence not only whether the Texas court proceeds, but also how it resolves conservatorship and primary-residence issues once it does.

Checklists

Preserving Texas Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction

• Confirm the date and court of the original Texas custody determination.
• Plead that the Texas court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction under Family Code section 152.202.
• Develop testimony establishing that at least one parent presently resides in Texas.
• Identify the child’s ongoing connections to Texas through possession, extended family, prior care, or relational history.
• Show that meaningful evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships remains available in Texas.
• Distinguish “home state” concepts from continuing exclusive jurisdiction in briefing and argument.
• Request express findings on continuing exclusive jurisdiction when interstate facts are disputed.

Litigating an Inconvenient-Forum Motion

• Address the chapter 152 inconvenient-forum factors directly rather than relying on generalized fairness arguments.
• Present concrete evidence on witness location, records, travel burdens, expense, safety concerns, and the location of relevant evidence.
• Explain why the Texas court can or cannot efficiently resolve the modification issues.
• If another state is proposed as the better forum, be prepared to show that a custody proceeding can be promptly commenced there.
• Avoid treating the child’s out-of-state residence as dispositive.
• Ask for a clear ruling on the inconvenient-forum request separate from the merits.
• Preserve the record with exhibits, witness testimony, and proposed findings.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problems

• Do not assume that the other parent’s alleged out-of-state employment defeats Texas residence.
• Do not file for affirmative modification in Texas without a coherent explanation of your jurisdictional position.
• Do not rely exclusively on the child’s current medical, school, or therapy location to prove Texas must decline jurisdiction.
• Do not minimize evidence of denied possession, poor co-parent communication, or gatekeeping behavior.
• Do not send texts or communications that suggest retaliatory conduct or resistance to co-parenting.
• Do not leave the court without a developed record on both UCCJEA jurisdiction and best interest.

Building a Better Appellate Record

• Obtain written orders expressly addressing subject matter jurisdiction and inconvenient forum.
• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial.
• Make sure testimony clearly establishes each parent’s current residence.
• Offer documentary support for residence, employment, travel, and the child’s treatment history.
• Separate legal argument on jurisdiction from merits argument on conservatorship.
• Preserve objections to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction, but also preserve factual disputes through evidence.
• Track whether a sister-state court has made any competing jurisdictional determination.

Citation

In the Interest of S.S.W., a Child, No. 05-25-00649-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~b2f01418-74ae-42ec-957b-6dd20508c572~~