Case Update (29 May 2026): Mugisha v. McLeod; UCCJEA & UIFSA Jurisdiction when Father resides in Uganda, which is the Children’s “Home State”
The parties met in Seattle, WA. Father is a Ugandan citizen. Mother is a U.S. citizen. They moved to Dubai, but traveled to Las Vegas in 2014 to be married. In 2015, their first child was born in Dubai. That same year, they moved from Dubai to Uganda. They had a second child while residing in Uganda in 2019. The child was born in Kenya. In Uganda, the Mother opened a furniture store, and the Father worked remotely for his Seattle employer, Microsoft. On December 14, 2023, the Mother took the children to Texas, and filed the Texas lawsuit at issue seeking child support and custody of their two children. On February 7, 2024, the Father filed a similar Ugandan lawsuit. In October 2024, the Texas trial court issued certain findings of fact, and assumed jurisdiction over both child support and custody.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed child support jurisdiction first. It noted that the Father filed a special appearance to contest jurisdiction of the entire proceeding, but ultimately generally appeared and therefore waived the special appearance, submitting himself to personal jurisdiction in Texas. The court has jurisdiction, therefore, to resolve the Mother’s request for child support. Jurisdiction over the issue of child support does not confer jurisdiction to resolve a child’s custody (conservatorship), however.
As for child custody jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal noted that the trial court assumed child custody jurisdiction in Texas on the basis that returning the children to Uganda would expose them to a grave risk of harm pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. [In case you are wondering, Uganda is not a party to the Hague Abduction Convention]. Separately, the Court concluded that Uganda’s child-custody laws violate fundamental principles of human rights, and therefore it need not treat Uganda as if it were another U.S. state, and it need not recognize the fact that Uganda appears to be the children’s “home state” under the UCCJEA, and it did not need to communicate with the Ugandan judge in the simultaneous proceeding related to the children in Uganda. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial court had insufficient legal and factual evidence to make this determination. Even though the Father failed to file an answer, because this relates to children, the Mother still had to present evidence to support her contention that Ugandan child custody laws violate fundamental principles of human rights. The Mother also failed to provide notice, as required under the Texas Rules of any intention to rely on the law of Uganda. As for the trial court’s references to the Hague Abduction Convention - the Court of Appeal merely inserted a footnote (4) to state there was insufficient evidence to support such a finding of grave risk. [But, note, it would have been preferable had the Court of Appeal specifically noted that the Hague Abduction Convention has no place in any argument related to child custody jurisdiction in the United States. See the Uniform Law Commission’s Commentary on this very issue.]
