IN THE INTEREST OF BRILLIANT 86 S.W.3d 680 (2002) CASE BRIEF

IN THE INTEREST OF BRILLIANT

86 S.W.3d 680 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Father (F) filed a Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act suit and won a temporary restraining order against removal of his child from the jurisdiction of El Paso County, Texas. Mother (M) was duly served, returned to Massachusetts, and pled to the jurisdiction. A default, naming F the sole managing conservator and ordering child support was entered against her. M appealed.

FACTS: Kaylee was born in Massachusetts on June 15, 1999. M, Kristen Lynn Fox (Kristen), was a seventeen-year-old high school student. F, Reginald Brilliant, is Kaylee's father but he and M have never married. M moved in with F in March 1999. M moved to Texas and left M to finish the last two months of high school. During their brief separation, M lived with her mother and wrote letters in which she told F she was anxious 'to start my new life down there with you.' She arrived in El Paso on June 12th. M completed and signed a rental application adding her name to the lease on their apartment. She filled out job applications with Blockbuster and Payless Shoe Source. Kaylee's immunization records were transferred to an El Paso clinic. The Social Security Administration mailed Kaylee's card--postmarked April 1, 2000--to F's father's home in El Paso. M soon expressed displeasure with Texas. She wrote F a letter on July 10, telling him 'that it just wasn't working out, she was leaving, she and the baby were going back to Massachusetts.' F filed suit on July 19 and on July 21, he obtained a temporary restraining order preventing M from removing Kaylee from El Paso County. M left El Paso for Massachusetts in violation of the restraining order. M and Kaylee spent a total of forty-five days in Texas. M filed a paternity suit in Massachusetts on August 3. M filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Texas court on August 7. The judge ultimately denied the jurisdictional plea. It held that Texas had jurisdiction over the case at that time. 'To grant the new trial and to decline jurisdiction, even on an inconvenient forum basis would be to condone the blatant disregard for court orders by M, which highly disturbs this Court.' Meanwhile F proceeded with his suit as M did not answer and F was appointed sole managing conservator of Kaylee, M was appointed as possessory conservator and a standard possession order was entered. Child support was fixed at $150 per month. M appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner