UCCJEA Inconvenient Forum Dismissal | Marriage of Basharat and Tariq (2026)

In the Matter of the Marriage of Hatif Bin Basharat and Maham Tariq and in the Interest of F.H.M., I.H.M., and A.H.M., Children, 05-25-01248-CV, November 06, 2026.

On appeal from 417th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA does not compel a trial court to exercise child-custody jurisdiction. Under Texas Family Code § 152.207, the court may decline jurisdiction when the statutory factors—including domestic violence, financial and immigration constraints, the location of evidence, and available family support—establish that Texas is an inconvenient forum and a foreign court is more appropriate.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision matters whenever a Texas divorce includes children and a meaningful connection to another state or country. A party cannot defeat an inconvenient-forum motion merely by proving that Texas is the children’s home state or that a spouse satisfies Texas’s divorce-residency requirements. Those circumstances may establish jurisdiction, but § 152.207 separately asks whether the court should exercise that jurisdiction.

The opinion also underscores the need to distinguish the divorce proceeding from the child-custody proceeding. Texas Family Code § 6.308 and UCCJEA § 152.207(d) permit a court, in an appropriate case, to retain portions of a divorce while declining custody jurisdiction. Counsel should therefore identify precisely which claims should remain in Texas, which should proceed elsewhere, and what interim protections are necessary during the jurisdictional transition.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Hatif Bin Basharat filed for divorce in Collin County and requested joint managing conservatorship of the parties’ three young children. He also sought the exclusive right to determine their primary residence and raised a potential international-abduction concern. The family had moved from Canada to Texas in August 2024, and Father contended that Texas qualified as the children’s home state when he filed suit in May 2025.

Maham Tariq responded that Ontario, Canada, was the more appropriate forum. She alleged a history of domestic abuse, including an April 2024 incident in Canada in which Father strangled her. According to Mother, Family and Child Services of Niagara became involved, removed Father from the family home, and limited his visitation.

Mother further alleged that Father induced her to move to Texas by representing that he could no longer work from Canada. She maintained that the relocation was not intended to be permanent and that Father subsequently used his control over finances, transportation, and immigration circumstances to isolate her. Mother was a Canadian permanent resident and a licensed pharmacist in Canada, but she was in the United States on a visitor visa that did not authorize her to work and was scheduled to expire in August 2025.

Shortly after Father filed for divorce, Mother alleged that he took the two older children, refused to disclose their location, and left her with the parties’ infant, approximately $40, no working credit card, no vehicle, and no car seat. She also asserted that the family’s Texas lease was ending and that she lacked stable housing, employment authorization, family support, and access to comparable public resources in Texas.

Mother initially filed a pro se request for emergency relief and later retained counsel. She moved for the court to decline, dismiss, or stay the case in favor of the Superior Court of Justice in St. Catharines, Ontario. The trial court initially denied that request and entered temporary conservatorship, geographic-restriction, possession, and support orders.

Mother then moved for reconsideration and developed a more detailed evidentiary record. She presented evidence concerning the alleged family violence in Canada, her expiring immigration status, her inability to work legally in Texas, the parties’ financial circumstances, the loss of Texas housing, the location of property and other evidence in Canada, and the family and community support available to her in Ontario. After hearing testimony from both parties, the trial court reconsidered its prior ruling, found Texas to be an inconvenient forum, and dismissed the case so that the requested relief could be addressed in Canada.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas’s status as the children’s home state required the trial court to exercise child-custody jurisdiction.

• Whether Texas Family Code § 152.207 authorized the trial court to decline jurisdiction in favor of an Ontario court.

• Whether Father’s Texas residency barred dismissal on inconvenient-forum grounds.

• Whether the evidence addressing domestic violence, immigration status, financial circumstances, available support, and the location of relevant evidence supported the trial court’s ruling.

• Whether the Hague Convention’s “habitual residence” analysis controlled the underlying custody-jurisdiction dispute.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 152.201 governs jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination. Under § 152.201(a)(1), Texas generally has jurisdiction when it is the child’s home state on the date the proceeding begins or was the home state within the preceding six months while a parent continues to reside in Texas.

Section 152.102(7) defines “home state” as the state in which a child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before commencement of the custody proceeding. For a child younger than six months, the home state is generally where the child lived from birth with a parent or person acting as a parent.

Home-state jurisdiction does not end the analysis. Section 152.207(a) provides that a Texas court with UCCJEA jurisdiction may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if Texas is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more appropriate.

In making that determination, § 152.207(b) requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including:

• Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue, and which forum can best protect the parties and children;

• How long the children have resided outside Texas;

• The distance between the competing courts;

• The parties’ relative financial circumstances;

• Any agreement concerning the appropriate forum;

• The nature and location of evidence necessary to resolve the custody dispute;

• Each court’s ability to decide the matter expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present evidence; and

• Each court’s familiarity with the relevant facts and issues.

Texas Family Code § 6.301 establishes the domiciliary and county-residency requirements for maintaining a Texas divorce. Those requirements do not eliminate the court’s separate authority to decline child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.

Sections 6.308 and 152.207(d) recognize that divorce and custody claims may be treated separately. A Texas court may proceed with matters over which it retains authority even when it declines to decide child custody.

The appellate court reviewed the reconsideration and inconvenient-forum ruling for abuse of discretion. Under that standard, the question was not whether the appellate court would have selected the same forum, but whether the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without supporting evidence.

The court also rejected Father’s reliance on the Hague Convention. The Convention addresses international child abduction and procedures for returning a child to the child’s country of habitual residence. It does not generally determine the merits of the underlying custody dispute, and neither party had invoked a Hague return proceeding in the trial court.

Application

The court treated home-state jurisdiction and inconvenient forum as distinct inquiries. Even if Texas was the children’s home state under § 152.201, that status established the Texas court’s authority to make an initial custody determination; it did not require the court to exercise that authority. Section 152.207 expressly permits a court that possesses jurisdiction to decline it.

The evidence supporting Ontario as the more appropriate forum went well beyond the parties’ competing preferences. Mother presented allegations of serious domestic violence occurring in Canada, together with prior involvement by Canadian child-protection authorities. That history connected Ontario not only to the parties’ past conduct but also to evidence relevant to risk assessment, protective measures, and conservatorship.

The parties’ relative circumstances also favored the trial court’s decision. Mother could legally work as a pharmacist in Canada but lacked employment authorization in Texas. Her visitor status was nearing expiration, and she presented evidence that she had limited money, no reliable transportation, uncertain housing, and no local support network. In Ontario, by contrast, she had lawful status, employment prospects, and access to family and friends who could assist with the children.

The location of witnesses, records, property information, and prior agency involvement further supported Ontario. Although the children had lived in Texas long enough to implicate home-state jurisdiction, a substantial portion of the evidence bearing on the family’s history, the alleged violence, and the parties’ circumstances was located in Canada.

The trial court initially denied Mother’s motion, but the expanded record on reconsideration materially developed the § 152.207 factors. Because both parties testified and the court had evidence addressing the statutory considerations, the appellate court concluded that the forum determination fell within the trial court’s discretionary authority.

Father’s Texas residency did not convert Texas into a mandatory forum for all issues. Residency could support maintenance of a divorce action, but it did not nullify the UCCJEA’s inconvenient-forum provision. Nor did Father’s reliance on “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention alter the analysis because the appeal did not arise from a Hague return proceeding.

Holding

The Fifth Court of Appeals held that a Texas court with home-state jurisdiction may nevertheless decline to exercise child-custody jurisdiction under Texas Family Code § 152.207. Home-state status establishes jurisdiction; it does not preclude a finding that Texas is an inconvenient forum.

The court also held that the trial court had sufficient evidence to determine that Ontario was the more appropriate forum. The evidence concerning alleged domestic violence, prior Canadian child-protection involvement, Mother’s immigration and employment restrictions, the parties’ relative financial circumstances, the location of relevant evidence, and the availability of family support in Canada supported the ruling.

Finally, the court rejected the arguments that Father’s Texas residency required the case to remain in Texas and that the Hague Convention controlled the custody-forum analysis. Finding no abuse of discretion, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

Practical Application

For the party seeking a Texas forum, proving home-state jurisdiction is only the first step. Counsel should also be prepared to defend Texas under every § 152.207 factor. That means presenting evidence about Texas-based witnesses, schools, physicians, therapists, law-enforcement records, financial information, housing, support systems, and the practical ability to try the case in Texas.

For the party seeking another forum, a motion should not rest on generalized assertions that another jurisdiction is more convenient. The successful record in this case addressed immigration status, legal work authorization, finances, housing, transportation, domestic violence, government-agency involvement, family support, and the location of evidence. The trial court’s change of course after reconsideration illustrates the importance of tying specific evidence to the statutory factors.

Domestic-violence evidence should be framed as more than a merits issue. Section 152.207 expressly makes the existence and likely continuation of domestic violence—and the ability of each forum to protect the parties and children—part of the jurisdictional analysis. Counsel should identify the location of prior incidents, witnesses, police or agency records, protective proceedings, available remedies, and enforcement mechanisms.

International cases also require precision in the requested relief. A UCCJEA inconvenient-forum motion is not the same as a Hague Convention petition. The UCCJEA determines which court should adjudicate custody; the Hague Convention generally addresses the prompt return of a child wrongfully removed or retained. Conflating the two can obscure the controlling legal standard.

Counsel should also address whether the court should dismiss or stay the custody proceeding and whether it should retain the divorce, property, support, or other claims. Because Texas law permits partial jurisdiction, the proposed order should specify the claims being declined, the forum selected, any deadline for commencing the foreign proceeding, the treatment of temporary orders, and the mechanisms for transferring records and coordinating with the other court.

Checklists

Preparing a § 152.207 Motion

• Identify the jurisdictional basis for the Texas court’s initial custody authority.

• Explain why possession of jurisdiction does not make Texas the appropriate forum.

• Address each factor listed in Texas Family Code § 152.207(b).

• Identify the specific court proposed as the more appropriate forum.

• Establish that the proposed court can exercise jurisdiction and provide effective relief.

• Present admissible evidence rather than relying solely on allegations in pleadings.

• Request judicial communication with the other court when appropriate.

• Specify whether the requested relief is dismissal, a stay, or declination of custody jurisdiction only.

• Propose a deadline for filing or continuing the proceeding in the selected forum.

• Address the continued effect, modification, or expiration of temporary orders.

Defending the Texas Forum

• Establish home-state jurisdiction under §§ 152.102 and 152.201.

• Do not stop after proving home-state status; respond separately to § 152.207.

• Identify Texas-based witnesses and summarize their expected testimony.

• Locate medical, educational, childcare, financial, and law-enforcement records in Texas.

• Demonstrate the parties’ ability to litigate efficiently in Texas.

• Explain available Texas protections for any alleged family violence.

• Present evidence concerning stable housing, employment, transportation, and family support in Texas.

• Address the cost and feasibility of obtaining testimony from foreign witnesses.

• Show whether the children have developed meaningful connections with Texas institutions and caregivers.

• Propose less drastic alternatives, including remote testimony, record authentication, or coordination with the foreign court.

Developing the Domestic-Violence Record

• Obtain police reports, protective orders, medical records, photographs, and communications.

• Identify prior child-protection or social-services investigations.

• Determine where the relevant witnesses and agency personnel are located.

• Address whether violence is likely to continue.

• Compare the protective remedies available in each forum.

• Explain how existing orders can be recognized and enforced across jurisdictions.

• Connect the evidence directly to § 152.207(b)(1), rather than presenting it only as a conservatorship issue.

• Preserve objections and obtain rulings on disputed evidence.

Building the Financial and Immigration Record

• Document each party’s citizenship, residency, visa status, and work authorization.

• Establish whether a party may lawfully remain and work in each forum.

• Present evidence of income, employment opportunities, housing, transportation, and access to funds.

• Identify restrictions on access to legal services or public benefits.

• Document control over bank accounts, credit cards, vehicles, passports, and immigration paperwork.

• Compare the anticipated cost of litigation in the competing forums.

• Identify family or community members available to assist with childcare and housing.

Drafting the Proposed Order

• State whether Texas has initial child-custody jurisdiction.

• Include findings addressing the relevant § 152.207 factors.

• Identify the court determined to be the more appropriate forum.

• Clarify whether the ruling applies to custody alone or to additional claims.

• State whether the Texas proceeding is dismissed or stayed.

• Set a deadline for commencement or continuation of the other proceeding.

• Address temporary conservatorship, possession, support, travel, and nonremoval provisions.

• Provide for transmission of pleadings, orders, transcripts, and exhibits.

• Address direct court-to-court communication when authorized.

• Preserve a mechanism for emergency relief if the foreign proceeding is not timely commenced.

Preserving the Appellate Record

• Obtain a reporter’s record of every jurisdictional and reconsideration hearing.

• Offer exhibits supporting each statutory factor.

• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when procedurally available.

• Secure express rulings on evidentiary objections.

• Make an offer of proof for excluded jurisdictional evidence.

• Distinguish arguments concerning divorce residency, UCCJEA jurisdiction, inconvenient forum, and Hague Convention remedies.

• Explain why any alleged error caused harm.

• Address the abuse-of-discretion standard in the trial court record and appellate briefing.

Citation

In the Matter of the Marriage of Hatif Bin Basharat and Maham Tariq and in the Interest of F.H.M., I.H.M., and A.H.M., Children, No. 05-25-01248-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~283b8089-d1f3-4467-96de-92318189e637~~