in the Interest of T.J.W.
336 S.W.3d 267 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a family law matter where the defendant's contacts with the forum state are not purposeful, continuous, and systematic, even if those contacts include sending support payments, opening a bank account for a child, and faxing administrative forms into the state.
Facts:
- Timothy Washington and Zina Shellman are the parents of T.J.W., who was born in Louisiana in 1991.
- Washington and Shellman were never married.
- Washington, a member of the U.S. military, has never resided in Texas.
- In 2006, Shellman and T.J.W. moved to Texas.
- While Shellman and T.J.W. lived in Texas, Washington made child support payments to Shellman in Texas.
- Washington established a joint bank account in his and T.J.W.'s names at a Texas-based bank, into which he deposited money.
- On two occasions, Washington faxed a form to Texas to enable T.J.W. to obtain a military ID card.
- On one occasion, Washington contacted military services in Texas to express concern that T.J.W. was being abused.
Procedural Posture:
- Zina Shellman filed a petition in a Texas trial court to adjudicate parentage and seek child support from Timothy Washington.
- Washington, a non-resident, was served with process and filed a special appearance challenging the court's personal jurisdiction over him.
- The trial court denied Washington's special appearance.
- The trial court subsequently signed an order confirming Washington owed $25,000 in child support arrearages.
- Washington (appellant) appealed the trial court's orders denying his special appearance and the arrearage judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Texas court have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident father in a child support case whose only contacts with the state consist of sending child support payments, opening a joint bank account for the child, faxing forms for the child's military ID, and making one call to a Texas military service to report potential abuse?
Opinions:
Majority - Phylis J. Speedlin
No. A Texas court does not have personal jurisdiction because the nonresident defendant's contacts with Texas were not sufficiently purposeful, continuous, and systematic to satisfy the due process requirements for general personal jurisdiction. Federal due process limits a state's power to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident, requiring that the defendant has purposely established 'minimum contacts' with the forum state. The court analyzed Washington's contacts—mailing support payments, opening a bank account, faxing forms, and making a single phone call—and found each to be insufficient, both individually and in the aggregate. Citing precedent, the court noted that mailing payments or making deposits into a Texas bank does not establish purposeful availment. Even considered together, these actions do not constitute the 'substantial activities' required for continuous and systematic contacts. The court concluded that Washington's contacts were even less substantial than those in cases where visiting a child in Texas was held insufficient to establish jurisdiction, meaning the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction was improper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for establishing general personal jurisdiction in Texas, particularly in family law contexts involving a non-resident parent. It clarifies that a series of actions related to a child's welfare and financial support, which are directed into the state only because the child resides there, do not constitute purposeful availment by the parent. The ruling protects non-resident parents from being subjected to litigation in any state where their child might move, absent a showing that the parent has independently and substantially engaged with the forum state. This maintains a clear distinction between contacts that are incidental to a parental relationship and contacts that create a genuine legal presence.
