PETITION DENIED. NO OPINION.
I concur in the denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus. Based on the limited materials before us, it appears likely that Texas was the home state of A.T.B. (“the child”), the child of E.B. (“the husband”) and A.B. (“the wife”), when the wife commenced the protection-from-abuse action in the Franklin Circuit Court (“the trial court”), see Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-102(7), and that a custody proceeding thereafter was commenced and may still be pending in Texas. This court has held that protection-from-abuse actions are within the temporary emergency jurisdiction of a trial court under Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-204, a part of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“the UCCJEA”), Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-101 et seq. See Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). The limited materials before us do not demonstrate that the trial court has failed to follow or will fail to follow the pertinent provisions of the UCCJEA or that it erred in issuing a protection-from-abuse order. The review of any such error, if any, must await an appeal. See Ex parte Shelton, 814 So. 2d 251 (Ala. 2001).
HANSON, Judge.
Thompson, P.J., and Moore and Fridy, JJ., concur.
Edwards, J., concurs specially, with opinion.