Saavedra v. Schmidt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that as long as one parent continues to live in the original decree state, that state alone can determine whether its jurisdiction continues
• holding Texas court could not assert jurisdiction to modify when California court insisted it was retaining jurisdiction of the case
• stating that, absent the issuing court’s relinquishment of exclusive continuing jurisdiction , the Texas court was without jurisdiction to modify the issuing court’s custody orders
• holding “[i]t is of no consequence that the Texas court determined that it was a more appropriate forum; the California court must make this determination before a court of this state may modify the California court’s child custody determination”
• describing the best-interests standard as a subset of the parens patriae doctrine
• “Absent the California court’s relinquishment of that exclusive continuing jurisdiction, the Texas court was without jurisdiction to modify the California orders.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).