LAW.coLAW.co

C. R. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

2026-06-17No. 03-25-00750-CV

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00750-CV

C. R. F., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 155TH DISTRICT COURT OF FAYETTE COUNTY

NO. 2024V-025, THE HONORABLE JEFF R. STEINHAUSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

After the Court issued its memorandum opinion and judgment in this case, C.R.F.

filed a motion for rehearing asserting, for the first time, that the Court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction over this case and requesting that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

C.R.F. challenges the trial court’s finding, set forth in its Order of Termination, that “no other

court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of this case.” C.R.F. argues that there is no evidence

in the record to support that finding and that there was evidence presented at trial suggesting that

a court in New Mexico had issued a custody determination involving C.R.F.’s children. At trial,

C.R.F. testified that she had been arrested in New Mexico for custodial interference. This

evidence raises the possibility that a New Mexico court had previously made a custody

determination involving at least one of C.R.F.’s children. If a New Mexico court had previously

issued a custody determination involving C.R.F.’s children, the trial court could not have modified the New Mexico court’s child custody determination while exercising temporary

emergency jurisdiction. See Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533, 548-49 (Tex. App.—Austin

2002, no pet.) (“We reiterate that the trial court’s assumption of temporary emergency

jurisdiction does not include jurisdiction to modify the California court’s child

custody determination.”).

In its original petition, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

stated that, in accordance with Texas Family Code section 155.101, it would “request that the

Vital Statistics Unit identify the court that last had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, or confirm

that the children have not been the subjects of a suit resulting in a court of continuing

jurisdiction.” See Tex. Fam. Code § 155.101(a) (requiring petitioner or court to request from

vital statistics unit identification of court that last had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of child);

(b) (requiring vital statistic unit to identify court that last had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction

of child or state that child has not been subject of suit). Although the trial court’s Order of

Termination includes a finding that “a request for identification of a court of continuing,

exclusive jurisdiction has been made as required by Section 155.101,” the record does not

include a response to this request from the vital statistics unit.

We cannot discern from the evidence presented at trial or from the record whether

a custody determination regarding C.R.F.’s children has been made by a court in New Mexico or

whether a New Mexico court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over C.R.F.’s children. This

unresolved fact may affect our subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. In similar instances,

appellate courts have abated pending appeals and remanded unresolved jurisdictional fact

questions to the trial court for resolution. See State v. White, 248 S.W.3d, 310, 314 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2007, no pet.) (abating for findings of fact regarding date notice of appeal signed); Peavy

2

v. Texas Home Mgmt., Inc., 16 S.W.3d 104, 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.)

(abating for findings of fact on when counsel received notice of appellate judgment).

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the district court to take evidence and

make written findings regarding the existence and nature of any prior suit involving custody

issues related to C.R.F.’s children. A supplemental record containing the district court’s written

findings and a transcription of any hearing shall be filed in this Court no later than twenty days

after the date of this opinion.

It is so ordered on June 17, 2026.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Crump and Ellis

Abated and Remanded

Filed: June 17, 2026

3