In the Interest of Brilliant
Texas Court of Appeals
86 S.W.3d 680 (2002)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Kristen Fox (plaintiff) and Reginald Brilliant (defendant), unmarried, had a child together, Kaylee Brilliant. Kristen, Reginald, and Kaylee lived together in Massachusetts for less than a year before Reginald moved to Texas. Kristen and Kaylee joined him following Kristen’s high-school graduation. After the move, Kristen signed Reginald’s apartment lease, applied for jobs, transferred Kaylee’s medical records, and notified Social Security that Kaylee was in Texas. Kaylee developed a strong relationship with Reginald’s Texas family. Shortly after, Kristen informed Reginald she was returning to Massachusetts. Reginald filed a custody suit and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the move, but Kristen and Kaylee moved anyway. Kristen and Kaylee were in Texas a total of 45 days. Kristen did not substantively answer Reginald’s custody suit and only entered a plea challenging jurisdiction, claiming Massachusetts was Kaylee’s home state because her absence was only temporary. The Texas court denied Kristen’s jurisdictional challenge and granted Reginald’s motion for default judgment, giving Reginald sole legal and physical custody of Kaylee and Kristen visitation rights. Kristen appealed, arguing Texas lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and challenging the default judgment for lack of notice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McClure, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.