Case Update (18 Aug 2026): Mugisha v. McLeod; substituted opinion changes course on finding personal jurisdiction over Father for child support

The Texas Court of Appeals is addressing this family’s ongoing litigation for a second time. The first time was in May 2026, with its opinion found here. The Husband/Father filed a request for rehearing, which the Court of Appeals denied. It nonetheless issued a substituted opinion and judgment in August 2026.

In its substituted opinion, the court found that the Father did not, in fact, waive personal jurisdiction (i.e., consent to it by not undertaking the correct procedural steps) for the issue of child support. He filed a special appearance only, and his acknowledgement that personal jurisdiction is not necessary for child-custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is not an admission of jurisdiction for UIFSA (the child support jurisdiction statute). Furthermore, his participation in a hearing related to custody jurisdiction was not a submission to personal jurisdiction for purposes of child support. The record also makes no reference whatsoever to the Father’s special appearance to contest child support jurisdiction. The only references in the record relate to child custody jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals also analyzed whether the Mother had plead sufficient facts that would have created jurisdiction under the long-arm provisions of UIFSA. It concluded she did not. Therefore, in a reverse of course, the Court of Appeals found that there was no jurisdiction over the Father for purposes of ordering him to pay child support in Texas.

As to custody jurisdiction, the Mother failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim. “[T]he trial court seems to have relied on arguments and evidence from the previous hearings in the case…”. This would be an improper use of judicial notice. The trial court furthermore did not consider the child custody laws of Uganda sua sponte under the Texas Rules of Evidence. The Mother only referenced some purported provisions in the Ugandan Divorce Act in her brief on the jurisdictional plea. However, these excerpts in her brief did not meet the notice requirements in Texas law. Therefore, due to her lack of sufficient evidence, the custody order should never have been entered by the court.

The Court of Appeals therefore vacated the trial court’s final order, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.