Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Original Mandamus Proceeding 
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice, Luz Elena D. Chapa,
Justice, Beth Watkins, Justice
Christina Dixon, asserts the trial court abused its
discretion by denying her plea to the jurisdiction and motion
to dismiss for forum non conveniens in the underlying suit
affecting the parent-child relationship. We conditionally
grant the petition for writ of mandamus.
2015, Christina and real party in interest, David Richardson,
obtained a divorce in Texas. They have one child, I.R. At the
time of the divorce, Christina was granted the right to
determine I.R.'s primary residence without geographic
restrictions. In August 2017, Christina moved with I.R. to
Virginia where they presently live with Christina's
current husband. In November 2018, David filed a
"Petition to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship"
in which he asked to be appointed the person with the right
to determine I.R.'s primary residence or, alternatively,
that the terms of possession and access be modified.
Christina then filed a "Plea to the Jurisdiction Or, In
the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Forum Non
Conveniens." Following a February 15, 2019 hearing, the
trial court signed an order denying Christina's plea and
motion. Christina filed her petition for writ of mandamus
asserting the trial court erred by denying her plea to the
jurisdiction and her motion to dismiss. David filed a
party disputes that the Texas court has continuing
jurisdiction in this case. However, Texas Family Code section
152.202 addresses a Texas court's continuing jurisdiction
over child-custody matters after the initial determination:
Except as otherwise provided in Section 152.204, a court of
this state which has made a child custody determination
consistent with Section 152.201 or 152.203 has exclusive
continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(1) a court of this state 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 this
state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in
this state concerning the child's care, protection,
training, and personal relationships; . . . .
Tex. Fam. Code § 152.202(a)(1).
152.202(a)(1) "specifically provides that a court
retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction
until it determines that the significant-connection
and substantial-evidence requirements are no longer
met." In re Forlenza, 140 S.W.3d 373, 376 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding) (emphasis in original).