Case Update (30 April 2026): In re Ortega; temporary emergency jurisdiction involves a high standard
The minor child in this case is a 9-year-old Mexican citizen. The court notes that she resided “her entire life in Mexico under the care and custody of [Alfaro Olvera]. The child was removed from Mexico by [Gallegos Ortega] and brought to Texas without [Alfaro Olvera’s'] consent.” In these situations, the left-behind parent would typically pursue one of two pathways to repatriate their child. They could, if available, file a request to return the child using the Hague Abduction Convention. The U.S. and Mexico are treaty partners. The second, also if available, is to pursue a custody order in the Mexican courts, assuming it was issued under facts in substantial conformity with the Texas enactment of the UCCJEA, it should be promptly enforceable. This parent went a third direction. He invoked Texas’s temporary emergency jurisdiction, and sought an order to return the child to Mexico, as well as to grant the parents certain custodial rights. The Mother in Texas sought to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. It seems evident that Mexico is the child’s home state, and therefore, Mexico is the venue where custody should be pursued. The parties are actually in litigation in two separate cases in Mexico over their child’s care. The Father in Mexico noted that the Mexican courts would not proceed until the child is back in Mexico. The question herein is whether Texas could or should exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction over the case. The trial court issued a writ of attachment and an order returning the child to Mexico, using its temporary emergency jurisdiction. The Mother in Texas sought a writ of mandamus.
Temporary emergency jurisdiction under Texas’ enactment of the UCCJEA is permitted if the child is present in Texas and has been abandoned or it is necessary to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. This standard is reserved for “extraordinary circumstances.” While the UCCJEA does not define mistreatment or abuse, other parts of the Texas Family Code do, and state that it includes “mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child’s growth, development, or psychological functioning,” “physical injury,” and harmful “sexual conduct.” The Father argued this exists - the child is in the USA on a tourist visa that permits the child to only be in the US for a total of 72 hours at a time. Yet, the child has been in the USA much longer, is enrolled in school (prohibited by the tourist visa), and is subject to deportation. Further, the Father alleged that the Mother is subject to criminal prosecution in Mexico and Texas. He asserted that he has been denied meaningful contact since June 2025, and there is no current custody order.
The Texas Court of Appeals, when reviewing the Mother’s request for a writ of mandamus, agreed with her that there is no emergency that meets the extraordinary circumstances necessary to invoke temporary emergency jurisdiction. Therefore, it vacated the order.
