Tex. Codes » Family Code · TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE B. SUITS AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · CHAPTER 152. UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Texas Codes

Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002 (2026)

Conflicts Between Provisions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 152.002. CONFLICTS BETWEEN PROVISIONS. If a provision of this chapter conflicts with a provision of this title or another statute or rule of this state and the conflict cannot be reconciled, this chapter prevails.

Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 34, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.

SUBCHAPTER B. GENERAL PROVISIONS


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999). · cites it 4× “This jurisdiction may be exercised to modify visitation, which is defined as “possession of and access to a child,” Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(11), but not to modify “custody” if the child and the custodial parent have established another home state, as in the present case.”
In Re Jeffries, 979 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002 (6). The Austin court has held that an absence from this state of eleven months qualifies as “temporary” under this provision.”
Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. 2004). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002. See In re M.”
in the Interest of M.G.M. & V.A.M., 163 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “" Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002 (Vernon 2002).”
Jones v. Fowler, 969 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1998). “” See Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(6) (“ ‘Home state’ means the state in which the child, preceding the time involved, lived with the child’s parents .”
McGuire v. McGuire, 18 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Tex.Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002(2). Thus, for purposes of the ability of a trial court to exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify a prior order, custody and visitation are treated differently.”
In the Interest of De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. 1999). “” Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(2). In turn, “managing conservatorship” is defined as “the relationship between a child and a managing conservator appointed by court order.”
Coots v. Leonard, 959 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(3). “Custody,” however, is defined as managing conservatorship of a child.”
Allison v. Allison, 3 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1998).”
Marriage of McLain v. McLain, 569 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1996); id.”
Seligman-Hargis v. Hargis, 186 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. App. 2006). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002 (Vernon 2002).”
In the Interest of Bellamy, 67 S.W.3d 482 (Tex. App. 2002). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002 (Vernon Supp.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002(11) — 3 cases
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999). “This jurisdiction may be exercised to modify visitation, which is defined as “possession of and access to a child,” Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(11), but not to modify “custody” if the child and the custodial parent have established another home state, as in the present case.”
Allison v. Allison, 3 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. 1999). “” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1998).”
Beaber v. Beaber, 971 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. App. 1998).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002(2) — 9 cases
In the Interest of De La Pena, 999 S.W.2d 521 (Tex. App. 1999). “” Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(2). In turn, “managing conservatorship” is defined as “the relationship between a child and a managing conservator appointed by court order.”
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999). “This jurisdiction may be exercised to modify visitation, which is defined as “possession of and access to a child,” Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(11), but not to modify “custody” if the child and the custodial parent have established another home state, as in the present case.”
McGuire v. McGuire, 18 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. 2000). “Tex.Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002(2). Thus, for purposes of the ability of a trial court to exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify a prior order, custody and visitation are treated differently.”
Coots v. Leonard, 959 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App. 1997). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(3). “Custody,” however, is defined as managing conservatorship of a child.”
Marriage of McLain v. McLain, 569 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1996); id.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002(3) — 6 cases
McGuire v. McGuire, 18 S.W.3d 801 (Tex. App. 2000). “Tex.Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002(2). Thus, for purposes of the ability of a trial court to exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify a prior order, custody and visitation are treated differently.”
Coots v. Leonard, 959 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App. 1997). “Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(3). “Custody,” however, is defined as managing conservatorship of a child.”
Marriage of McLain v. McLain, 569 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1996); id.”
In Re Powers, 974 S.W.2d 867 (Tex. App. 1998).
Allison v. Allison, 3 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App. 1999). “” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 152.002(2) (Vernon 1998).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002(4) — 1 case
Arteaga v. Texas Dep't of Prot. & Regulatory Servs., 924 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App. 1996).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 152.002(6) — 7 cases
In Re Jeffries, 979 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. App. 1998). “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 152.002 (6). The Austin court has held that an absence from this state of eleven months qualifies as “temporary” under this provision.”
Jones v. Fowler, 969 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. 1998). “” See Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(6) (“ ‘Home state’ means the state in which the child, preceding the time involved, lived with the child’s parents .”
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999). “This jurisdiction may be exercised to modify visitation, which is defined as “possession of and access to a child,” Tex. Fam.Code § 152.002(11), but not to modify “custody” if the child and the custodial parent have established another home state, as in the present case.”
Boots v. Lopez, 6 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App. 1999).
In the Interest of B.O.G., 48 S.W.3d 312 (Tex. App. 2001).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.