The opinion
KEITH, Justice
(concurring).
While I concur in the affirmation of the trial court’s judgment, I do so upon different grounds than that relied upon by the majority. The “continuing jurisdiction” concept is only peripherally involved in this case; and, I might add, the grant of continuing jurisdiction in child custody proceedings to courts in Texas has no bearing upon the decision of this cause.
The single question involved is whether the second decree of the South Carolina court granting the mother custody of the child is entitled to full faith and credit in the Texas court. If the South Carolina court had acquired in personam jurisdiction over the father prior to the entry of the change of custody decree, such order was entitled to full faith and credit in the courts of Texas.
The introduction of the South Carolina decree made a prima facie case for the mother and the burden was then upon the father to establish that the court did not have jurisdiction to render it. Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 364 (Tex.1975); Tex.Family Code Ann. § 14.10(b)(1) (1975); Seaberg v. Brogunier, 515 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1974, writ ref’d n. r. e.).
A long line of Texas cases has firmly established the rule that foreign custody decrees are entitled to full faith and credit. See, e. g., Goldsmith v. Salkey, 131 Tex. 139 , 112 S.W.2d 165 , 116 A.L.R. 1293 (1938); Bukovich v. Bukovich, 399 S.W.2d 528 (Tex.1966); Knowles v. Grimes, 437 S.W.2d 816 (Tex.1969). Many decisions of the several courts of civil appeals following the rule are to be found listed in 35 A.L.R.3d 520 , 540, “Child Custody — Foreign Judgments,” (1971).
But, under the authoritative decision of May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 , 73 S.Ct. 840 , 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953), a custody decision without personal jurisdiction over the parent is not entitled to full faith and credit. The equally authoritative decision of Mitchim v. Mitchim, supra ( 518 S.W.2d at 365 ), has determined that in personam jurisdiction may be acquired through the use of long-arm statutes in this field.
The South Carolina court acquired in per-sonam jurisdiction over the father in accordance with its statutes and rules; and, the father, with full notice of the hearing on the change in custody, failed to appear at the hearing. If the father has any right to have the custody changed, he still has a remedy available in the courts of South Carolina, not in Texas at this time. Bukovich v. Bukovich, supra; Seaberg v. Brogunier, supra. But, see and compare Rodgers v. Williamson, 489 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.1973).
Thus, while I concur in the affirmation of the judgment of the trial court, I do so upon the ground that the South Carolina court, having acquired in personam jurisdiction over the father, its custodial decree was entitled to full faith and credit in the Texas courts. Knowles v. Grimes, supra ( 437 S.W.2d at 817 ). I do not base my concurrence upon the concept of “continuing jurisdiction” as embodied in the Family Code of Texas.