In the Interest OF X.H.Q., a Child v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 20, 2025·No. 05-25-00729-CV·Published

Opinion

IN THE

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AT DALLAS

rILED iN

pppe&S Court of

No. O5-25-00729-CV

MiS 20 2025 Ruben Modfl.

District

Clerk, Stt’

Anthony Quinones, Appellant,

V.

State of Texas, Appellee.

AMENDED APPELLANT’S BRIEF On Appeal from Trial Court Cause No. DF-24-17475 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas The Honorable LaDeitra Adkins, District Judge

Anthony Quinones 2857 W Walnut Hill Ln apt 2095 irving, TX 75038 Phone 315-775-1515 antlrnnv.rsantos4 8.’Zl vahoo.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION S

ISSUES PRESENTED 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 12

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 17

APPENDIX 20

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

The following constitutes a list of all parties to the trial court’s final judgment and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel:

Petitioner: Name Anthony Quinones Address

Petitioner’s trial Name Anthony Quinones counsel: Address 2857 W Walnut Hill Ln apt 2095 Irving, TX 75038 Telephone 315-775-1515 Fax E-mail

Petitioner’s appellate Name counsel: Address Telephone Fax E-mail

Respondent: Name The State of Texas (Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division) Address

Respondent’s trial Name Office of the Attorney General of Texas —

counsel: Child Support Division Matthew Deal Deterrean Gamble Nicole Loya Telephone 214-752-5508 Fax E-mail

Respondent’s Name Office of the Attorney General Child —

appellate counsel: Support Division Address OAG, Child Support Division, 400 S.

Zang Blvd., Suite 1100, Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone (512) 460-6000 Fax (512)460-6080 E-mail

Other parties: Emily Velasquez (Obligee/Mother) (if applicable)

Counsel for other Name parties: Address Telephone Fax E-mail

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page

Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi,

12S.W.3d71 (Tex.2000) pp.7,13,15

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,

133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) pp. 7, 13

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

339U.S.306(1950) pp.14

Wilson v. Dunn,

800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) pp. 14

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

Tex. Fam. Code § 159.603 pp. 10, 12, 13-14

Tex. Farn. Code § 159.605 pp. 9, 14

U.S. Const. amend. XIV p. 14

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.012 p. 8

Tex. Farn. Code § 109.002 p. 8

RULES

Tex. R. App. P. 9.4 p. 19 (Certificate of Compliance)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the case: This is a UIFSA registrationlmodification proceeding filed

by the Texas Office of the Attorney General (Title IV-D) to

register an Arizona consent decree (Feb. 23, 202fl that

reflected no child-support obligation and $0.00 arrears,

and to impose support in Texas under the label of

“modification.” Mr. Quinones specially appeared and filed

jurisdictional contests, asserting (i) no existing foreign

support order to register/modify, (ii) lack of proper service

of any notice of registration, and (iii) due-process defects.

The obligee’s filings acknowledged no current support

order.

Disposition in the On April 24, 2025, an Associate Judge of the 303rd trial court:

District Court signed an Order Confirming Registration

and in Suit for Modification of Child Support Order

(UIFSA), setting current child support at $431/month and

medical support at $250/month. Mr. Quinones promptly

filed a motion to contest registration and modification and

sought a stay. A de novo setting was held before the

referring court on May 16, 2025: no new district-judge

order was signed, and Mr. Quinones preserved all

jurisdictional objections. He filed his notice of appeal.

Disposition in the The appeal is docketed in the Fifth Court of Appeals, co art of appeals:

No. 05-25-00729-CV. The clerk’s record and the reporter’s

record from the May 1 6, 2025 setting are before the

Court. No appellate disposition has issued; briefing is

pending.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether a trial court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law

reviewed de novo. Tat Dept ofPar/cs & Wi/dli,fè v, Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217,

226 (Tex. 2004).

Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, consent, or estoppel. If

the trial court lacked jurisdiction, its order is void and must be vacated. Dubai

Petroleum Co v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76—77 (Tex. 2000).

Because Appellant challenges the trial court’s authority under the Uniform

Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to register and “modify” when no

enforceable support order existed, this Court reviews de novo and should

declare the April 24, 2025 order void.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §

51.012 and Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002. The order appealed is the April 24, 2025

“Order Confirming Registration and in Suit for Modification of Child

Support Order (UIFSA)” (CR 203—06). Appellant timely filed notice of appeal

on June 13, 2025 (CR 239).

ISSUES PRESENTED

UIFSA Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Did the trial court err by confirming registration and modifying where no

enforceable child-support order existed in the issuing state, contrary to Tex.

Fam. Code § 159.603?

[ Defective Notice of Registration (Due Process)

Did jurisdiction fail to vest where the “Notice of Registration of Foreign Support

Order” (CR 76) was never served on Appellant and bears irregularities

(including no file-stamp date), contrary to Tex. Fam. Code § 159.605(a)?

LI Creation of a New Obligation in a Registration Proceeding

Did the court exceed its statutory authority by creating a support obligation even

though the obligee’s filings reflect no current support order (CR 61, 67) and the

registration materials state S0.O0 arrears (CR 76)?

LI Waiver of Service / Special Appearance

Did the court err in treating Appellant’s Waiver of Service (CR 125—26) as a

general appearance where Appellant timely and repeatedly challenged jurisdiction

(CR 130, 134, 222) and subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived?

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The family’s Arizona dissolution decree (February 23, 2021) did not impose

a child-support obligation. The record reflects SO.0O arrears in the OAG’s

registration packet (CR 76) and the obligee’s filings deny any current

support order (CR 61, 67).

2. On or about December 4, 2024, the OAG initiated registrationlmodification

proceedings in Dallas County. The packet includes a “Notice of

Registration of Foreign Support Order” (CR 76) and transmittal materials

(CR 75—79).

3. The Notice of Registration in the record does not bear a file-stamp date,

and Appellant was never served with that notice as UIFSA requires

(CR 75—79).

4. Appellant filed timely jurisdictional challenges, including Motion to

Challenge Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (CR 130), Request for Judicial

Notice (CR 134), Motion to Contest Registration &

Modification (CR 222), and related filings.

5. The registration materials and the § 105.006 information sheet in the April

24, 2025 order reflect Social Security number endings that do not match

Appellant, creating an identity irregularity within the record. This

discrepancy, combined with the absence of a file-stamp on the “Notice of

Registration” and lack of service, underscores a defective registration and

notice process. (CR 75—79, 203—06).

6. Despite the absence of an enforceable obligation, the Associate Judge signed

an “Order Confirming Registration and in Suit for Modification of

Child Support Order (UIFSA)” on April 24, 2025 (CR 203—06), imposing

support and medical suppor.

7. A de novo hearing was set and a reporter’s record prepared (RR Vol. 1, May

16, 2025). Appellant preserved jurisdictional objections and pursued appeal.

Appellant filed notices of appeal on April 28, 2025 (CR 234) and June 13,

2025 (CR 239).

- H -

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court lacked jurisdiction under UIFSA to register/modify because the

record shows no enforceable foreign support order existed. The OAG’s

registration packet reflects $0.00 arrears (CR 76) and the obligee’s sworn filings

indicate no current support order (CR 61, 67). Tex. Fam. Code §

159.603 authorizes registration of an existing support order—not the creation of

a new obligation.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the Interest OF X.H.Q., a Child v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

In the Interest OF X.H.Q., a Child v. the State of Texas (In the Interest OF X.H.Q., a Child v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
339 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
133 S.W.3d 217 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi
12 S.W.3d 71 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Wilson v. Dunn
800 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)