Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction Uccjea topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ms. Curry urges court to dismiss Washington proceedings, says Texas was child's home state
Summary
At a June 3, 2026 virtual discretionary-review hearing in a parentage matter, Ms. Curry argued Washington lacked jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because Texas was the child's home state; opposing counsel said Washington's factual findings and state Supreme Court precedent support continued Washington jurisdiction. The commissioner took the matter under advisement.
Ms. Curry told the court at the start of oral argument that she could not obtain trial transcripts "due to financial constraints" and asked the court to find a clear legal error in Washington's handling of the case.
"I was unable to obtain transcripts due to financial constraints," Ms. Curry said, and told the commissioner she believed the clerk's papers and the written order showed an error of law that warranted discretionary review.
Ms. Curry framed her argument under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), saying the statute's six-month "bright-line" test for identifying a child's home state placed the child in Texas as of June 16, 2023, and that Washington therefore lacked authority to enter or retain custody orders.
"So the bright line helps identify the home state," Ms. Curry told the court, arguing that once the home-state period is established the non-home state cannot rely on existing contacts to retain jurisdiction.
Opposing counsel for Mr. Kaufman said the discretionary-review standard requires more than an asserted legal error: it applies when further proceedings would be "useless," and counsel asserted that factual development remains necessary. He argued Washington did not automatically lose continuing jurisdiction when the child established a new home state and relied on Washington Supreme Court precedent to support that view.
"I believe it's Greenlaw that says that a child can maintain a sufficient connection with Washington even after the child and custodian move away from Washington and the child establishes a new home state," counsel said, pointing to trial-court findings the counsel said tracked statutory factors under RCW 26.27.261.
Counsel also cautioned against encouraging forum shopping and noted, as part of his presentation, that the child had spent a substantial portion of her life in Washington; he argued that a prior notice of relocation and other filings supported Washington's ongoing jurisdictional connections.
In a brief rebuttal, Ms. Curry reiterated her view that relocation across the UCCJEA bright line severs jurisdiction and that, she contended, Texas had been told Washington would release jurisdiction and was awaiting the formal order.
The presiding officer thanked both sides, asked participants to report any unresolved technical issues, and said the court would "take this matter under consideration and issue a written ruling as quickly as I can." The hearing was then adjourned for the commissioner's June 3, 2026 docket.
No formal ruling was issued at the hearing; the commissioner took the matter under advisement. The dispute centers on whether the UCCJEA's home-state test (the six-month bright-line) or continuing-connection factors should control when two states claim jurisdiction in overlapping parentage proceedings.
