RULE 0 Never assume. Never flatten. Simplify the explanation—never the governing meaning.
Prototype v1.9
Explain the situation.
Describe what happened in your own words. LinchKey will separate the people, records, questions, governing sources, conflicts, and missing facts before allowing a conclusion.
Screen 2 — Dates and governing version
When did each controlling event happen?
Dates determine which statute and procedure applied, whether an emergency was current,
whether a temporary order expired, whether an objection was preserved, and how a later
court opinion affects a pending or final case.
Exact date unknown? Enter the possible range.
For an older emergency order, the historical statute and every later authority change are shown separately.
LinchKey will load the historical authority in effect on the event date and separately
identify any current controlling interpretation. A later opinion does not erase the
remaining UCCJEA, service, timing, communication, modification, or PKPA requirements.
Screen 3 — Discovery
Potential node detected
Six-month residence Relevant only to the initial-jurisdiction pathway. It does not control once a prior custody order or court-established parentage order exists.
I cannot answer that without more information.
The first question is whether any court has already entered a custody order or a court order establishing legal parentage for each child. If yes, LinchKey must follow the originating-state pathway first, then the later-state pathway, and finally reconcile both under controlling federal law.
Grounding Rule
Grounding rule
Six-month residence belongs only to the initial-jurisdiction branch.
When a prior custody order or court-established parentage order exists, LinchKey does not begin with current residence or six-month timing.
1. Originating state Apply that state’s own law and required process first.
→
2. Later state Apply that state’s independent duties second.
→
3. Federal layer Federal law supersedes conflicting state practice and reconciles both states.
Question 1 — Prior Authority
Question 1 — asked separately for each child
Matching answers do not authorize automatic grouping.
Child A
Unanswered
Has any court ever entered a custody order or a court order establishing legal parentage for this child?
Child B
Unanswered
Has any court ever entered a custody order or a court order establishing legal parentage for this child?
Child C
Unanswered
Has any court ever entered a custody order or a court order establishing legal parentage for this child?
Originating State
Identify the originating state for each child
A “Yes” answer only establishes that prior court authority may exist. LinchKey must next identify which state entered each child’s controlling custody or parentage order so the correct state framework is loaded before any further questions.
Child A
Originating state
Child B
Originating state
Child C
Originating state
Authority preload:
In this fictional demo, all three originating states are Texas. LinchKey therefore preloads Texas parentage, service, docket, continuing-jurisdiction, and UCCJEA rules before asking the next factual questions. A different originating state would generate a different state-specific question path.
Child-Specific Record Facts
Additional case facts — identify the exact court record for each child
A “Yes” answer does not mean the child has a custody order. It may mean a custody order, a parentage order, both, or a child who appeared in a case but was not covered by the final custody order.
Child A
Separate record
Result: Child A has a controlling parentage order identifying the legal father, but no custody determination from the later shared docket.
Child B
Separate record
Child B shares an earlier case number with Child A only in the historical sense that both were initially listed. Their final legal records are not the same.
Child C
Separate record
Child C has a different Texas case number and docket. Original-case service and final orders must be distinguished from any later Texas-side jurisdiction process.
Record distinction
“Appeared in the same case” is not the same as “covered by the same final order.” LinchKey must trace the petition history, dismissal or removal, final order, parentage order, service record, and legal effect separately.
Mapped Foundations
Mapped foundations
The pathways below are generated from the exact court-record facts, including the difference between an initial case listing and the final order.
Child A
Parentage-only pathway
A separate Texas parentage order identifies Child A’s biological/legal father.
Child A was initially listed in the Texas custody case that also involved Child B, but Child A was removed before final custody adjudication.
Child A’s biological/legal father was not identified, found, or served in any Texas-side jurisdiction process.
No Texas jurisdiction motion, docketed proceeding, or judicial determination has been identified for Child A.
Because the controlling parentage order and legal father were not brought into the Texas jurisdiction process, a valid Texas declination or transfer affecting Child A is not established.
The record also raises an open court-identity issue: the later court may not have been the Texas court connected to Child A’s controlling parentage order.
Child B
Separate final-order pathway
Child B is covered by the final Texas custody order, and Child B’s legal father was properly before the court in that original custody case.
No separate Texas motion, proceeding, or docketed jurisdiction issue has been identified concerning continuing jurisdiction, inconvenient forum, or declination.
No Texas-side notice or opportunity to be heard on a later jurisdiction issue is shown for the mother or Child B’s legal father.
Original custody-case service does not prove notice or participation in a later Texas jurisdiction determination that was never docketed.
Texas-side UCCJEA process failed for Child B.
Child C
Separate docket pathway
Child C has a separate Texas custody and parentage order in a different case number and docket.
Child C’s legal father was properly before the Texas court in the original case, and final orders were entered.
Neither Child C’s legal father nor the biological mother was served or formally notified of any later Texas-side jurisdiction issue.
No later Texas jurisdiction motion, docketed proceeding, hearing, or child-specific declination determination has been identified for Child C.
The valid original Texas case must be separated from the missing later jurisdiction process.
Texas-side UCCJEA process failed for Child C.
Why the later grouped process is defective:
A prior-order inquiry should have surfaced three different legal foundations: Child A’s separate parentage order, Child B’s final custody order, and Child C’s separate custody/parentage case. Treating them as one family-level record hides the exact orders, legal fathers, parties, and service duties that control each child.
Texas-side UCCJEA result — all three children: Child A: failed — no Texas jurisdiction docket, no service on the biological/legal father, no service on the mother, no opportunity to be heard, and no child-specific Texas jurisdiction determination.
Child B: failed — an original custody order exists, but no later Texas jurisdiction motion or docket, no jurisdiction-specific notice or hearing, and no Texas declination or continuing-jurisdiction determination are identified.
Child C: failed — a valid separate Texas original case and final orders exist, but neither parent was served on any later Texas jurisdiction issue and no jurisdiction motion, hearing, or child-specific declination determination is identified.
These questions ask what the Texas record actually shows. A party’s belief that a matter was “transferred” or that “Texas declined” is not treated as proof.
Texas docket and judicial action
Texas notice and opportunity to be heard
Residence and court communication
Service distinction:
Proper service in the original Texas custody case proves participation in that original custody proceeding only. It does not establish that a later Texas continuing-jurisdiction, inconvenient-forum, or declination issue was filed, docketed, noticed, and heard. LinchKey verifies the later jurisdiction process separately.
How LinchKey evaluates these answers:
A communication limited to schedules, calendars, or locating records cannot itself decide jurisdiction, decline jurisdiction, or transfer authority. If jurisdiction or legal issues were discussed, the required record, party notice and access, and opportunity to present facts and legal arguments must be verified. In either event, court-to-court communication does not replace the originating state’s own docket, required notice or service, opportunity to be heard, and judicial determination.
Framework portability:
Texas is the originating state in this fictional demo, so LinchKey loads Texas’s UCCJEA, parentage, service, docket, and procedural framework. If another state entered the controlling order, LinchKey would load that state’s framework and generate that state’s factual questions before evaluating the later state.
Virginia Independent Verification
Virginia authority loaded for this branchVa. Code § 20-146.9 — court communicationVa. Code §§ 20-146.13–14 — continuing jurisdiction / modificationVa. Code § 20-146.16 — notice and opportunity to be heard
Virginia’s independent verification duty
Virginia cannot rely only on a recital, a party’s belief, an agency summary, or an administrative court contact. It must verify whether the originating-state requirements were actually satisfied before relying on a Texas declination or loss of jurisdiction.
Did Virginia obtain the originating record?
Did Virginia verify Texas process?
Did Virginia verify the child-specific scope?
Collapse rule:
If the Texas-side jurisdiction docket, notice or service for that jurisdiction issue, opportunity to be heard, child-specific scope, and judicial determination are not verified, Texas compliance is not established. Here, Child A’s legal father was not identified, found, or served; Child C had a separate Texas case and legal father who was not served; and the biological mother was not served in any Texas-side jurisdiction proceeding. Virginia then had an independent duty to discover those separate dockets, controlling orders, and legal parents before relying on any claimed Texas declination or loss of jurisdiction. If Virginia failed to identify the fathers and separate Texas records, it could not have completed the required child-specific verification. Virginia’s modification foundation is therefore not established on the shown facts. The federal layer does not cure either missing state foundation; it controls whether a later state may recognize or modify the prior determination.
Combined Authority
Federal layer applied after both state paths28 U.S.C. § 1738A — PKPA
Pathway selected
Existing authority detected Custody order, parentage order, or both
→
Originating state: Texas
→
Later state: Virginia
→
Federal reconciliation
LinchKey does not ask generic downstream questions. It loads Texas law first and generates Texas-specific questions from Texas authority. Only after that pathway is traced does it load Virginia law and Virginia’s independent duties. Federal law then reconciles and supersedes conflicting state practice.
Texas source chain
Every prior custody and parentage order, child by child
Distinguish initial case listing from the children covered by the final order
Correct legal parents under Texas law and each controlling order
Texas-side notice or service to all legal parents and other entitled persons
Opportunity to be heard and present facts and legal arguments before the Texas decision
Residence facts relevant to Texas continuing jurisdiction
Actual Texas judicial determination, child-specific scope, and originating docket
Record and party safeguards for any substantive interstate communication
Virginia source chain
Identify and verify the Texas orders
Apply Texas legal parentage, not a conflicting Virginia record
Independently confirm Texas satisfied Texas law
Satisfy Virginia’s own modification and notice duties
Federal source chain
Recognition of qualifying prior determinations
Reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard
Texas continuing jurisdiction or actual loss/declination
Virginia lawful modification authority
Grounded Conclusion
Date-controlled result:
A later judicial opinion may change preservation or classification in a pending case,
but it does not cure a supposed 2019 Virginia emergency order or supply missing historical
facts, duration language, immediate communication, service, Texas-side process, Virginia
modification authority, or PKPA compliance. A Virginia de novo appeal hears the matter anew,
but still must apply the UCCJEA, verify the Texas foundation, and establish a lawful current
authority path before permanent relief.
Conclusion blocked
Child A — Texas-side UCCJEA process failed.
Child B — Texas-side UCCJEA process failed.
Child C — Texas-side UCCJEA process failed.
No complete child-specific chain distinguishes Child A’s parentage-only order, Child B’s final custody order, and Child C’s separate docket.
Virginia relied on grouped records and failed to identify controlling parentage orders and legal fathers for every child.
Virginia’s independent verification and modification foundation is not established. Its failure to discover the controlling parentage orders and legal fathers is incompatible with a completed child-specific verification of the Texas record. Federal modification conditions are not satisfied on the shown record.
Verification inference:
This is not merely “Texas failed, therefore Virginia automatically failed.” Virginia had its own duty to verify the Texas orders, dockets, legal parents, notice, opportunity to be heard, and actual Texas jurisdiction determination. Because the controlling parentage orders and biological/legal fathers were not discovered, the shown Virginia process could not have completed that child-specific verification.
Grounded finding: The six-month fact belongs to the initial-jurisdiction branch and cannot substitute for the prior-authority analysis shown here.
Six-month residence does not answer this question. Existing Texas custody and parentage determinations place each child on a distinct prior-authority pathway. The shown record does not establish Texas-side compliance for any child-specific jurisdiction determination. Virginia also did not independently verify the separate Texas dockets, controlling orders, legal parents, service, and opportunity-to-be-heard foundation. Because the federal modification rule requires lawful later-state jurisdiction plus an actual loss or declination of originating-state jurisdiction, the modification chain is not established.
Other branches exist but are not walked through in this three-minute demo:
No prior order → initial-determination questions.
Unknown → records-verification path.
Different originating state → load that state’s governing law and generate different questions.
Why this conclusion?
LinchKey does not stop at “Virginia cannot modify.” It shows which required elements
were proved, which failed, which remain unresolved, and which authority controls each node.
Verified2
Failed5
Unresolved3
✓
Prior Texas orders identified
The analysis is modification-based, not a fresh six-month initial-jurisdiction question.
28 U.S.C. § 1738A TX § 152.202
×
Texas jurisdiction proceeding not established
No child-specific Texas docket, motion, service, hearing, findings, or declination is verified.
TX §§ 152.202, .207
×
Texas-side service and opportunity not established
Original-case participation does not prove service or notice for a later jurisdictional act.
TX §§ 152.008, .205 PKPA § 1738A(e)
×
Valid Texas loss or declination not verified
Judge-to-judge communication is one node; it does not replace every required element.
TX §§ 152.010, .202, .207
×
Virginia independent verification failed
Virginia did not verify the controlling Texas orders, dockets, legal parents, process, and jurisdictional status.
VA §§ 20-146.9, .14, .16, .20
?
Historical emergency date and order terms
The exact order date, duration language, communication record, and expiration remain date-controlled nodes.
VA § 20-146.15
×
Permanent-modification path not established
Temporary emergency authority cannot become permanent without a separately valid long-term path.
VA § 20-146.14 PKPA § 1738A(f)
Overall result: FAILED / NOT ESTABLISHED
The required modification chain is conjunctive. A prior order exists, but the Texas
continuing-jurisdiction or declination process, Virginia’s independent verification,
and the federal modification gate are not all satisfied. One compliant act cannot
carry the whole structure.
Required Changes to Establish a Different Governing Pathway
LinchKey does not presume that a single statement, order, communication,
participation, appearance, agency summary, recital, or claimed jurisdictional
event completes a governing pathway.
A different result requires newly verified facts and governing authority
establishing every required element of a legally sufficient, child-specific
pathway. No single requirement satisfies another.
The originating-state pathway must be independently established, including as applicable:
the actual originating-state docket and proceeding;
the governing court and the exact issue placed before it;
correct identification of every legal parent, contestant, physical custodian, and necessary party;
legally sufficient originating-state service and notice for that specific proceeding or determination;
a meaningful originating-state opportunity to be heard on that specific issue;
the required jurisdictional facts, findings, procedural steps, and written or recorded orders;
the complete court-to-court communication record where communication occurred or was required;
and satisfaction of every required element and sub-element of any claimed loss, continuation, modification, or inconvenient-forum pathway.
Participation in another proceeding does not automatically establish service,
notice, waiver, consent, or opportunity to be heard for a later jurisdictional act.
A statement that the originating state “declined” is not enough by itself.
The later-state pathway must also be independently established, including as applicable:
obtaining and verifying the controlling originating-state orders and docket;
verifying the originating-state process rather than relying on a summary or recital;
identifying the correct legal parents and parties child by child;
satisfying the later state’s own notice, service, hearing, timing, record, and communication requirements;
independently testing every statutory element of its claimed authority;
and satisfying the complete federal PKPA modification pathway.
Temporary-emergency authority remains a separate pathway.
The exact emergency facts, date, scope, duration, and required limits must be identified.
Required communication with the state holding an existing order or jurisdiction must be verified.
A temporary order does not automatically become continuing or permanent authority.
Before later or long-term custody orders, a separately valid UCCJEA and PKPA pathway must still be completed.
A later hearing, appeal, de novo proceeding, new order, participation, or passage
of time does not retroactively create missing service, notice, opportunity to be
heard, findings, jurisdiction, communication records, or originating-state process.
When any material fact or governing authority changes, LinchKey reruns the
originating-state pathway, every alternative route, the temporary-emergency
pathway, the later-state independent-duty pathway, the federal pathway, and every
dependent conclusion, exception, and downstream effect.
Authority determines the required questions. Verified evidence answers them.
Reasoning evaluates the relationship and explains the result.
