Here’s a case that demonstrates that UCCJEA analysis of home state determination is based solely on objective facts and not in the intent of the parties.

C.H. v. S.L., No. 02-00386-CV, 2018 WL 4925318 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth 2018, no pet.h.)

The parties lived together in Minnesota for a period of time, but the father separated from the mother and moved to Texas.  Over the course of the next five years the parties attempted a reconciliation.  While mother maintained a residence in Minnesota, she was frequently in Texas and the child was enrolled in Texas public schools.  Upon the father filing for divorce in Texas, the Mother moved back to Minnesota and asserted that her residence was there and the Minnesota Court should resolve the child related issues in the divorce, claiming she always considered herself a residence of Minnesota.

The appellate Court found that the parent’s subjective intent regarding the child’s residence was not relevant. The Court further confirmed that the central factor in all UCCJEA determinations of home state is the physical presence of the child.