CAUSE NO. ##########

YOUR CASE STYLING GOES HERE					§										IN THE DISTRICT COURT
																																§	
EXACTLY AS IT NORMALLY ALSO				§										999th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
																																§
APPEARS ON OTHER CASE DOCS						§										XXXXXX COUNTY, TEXAS

Plea to the Jurisdiction with Motion for Continuance

COMES NOW FirstName LastName, PartyLabel herein, on behalf of AG Paxton, moving the Court to stay and/or abate any other issues currently pending in these matters, due to plea to the jurisdiction raising various facial challenges to the Texas state statute(s) upon which this entire case is based, which issues can only be addressed by AG Paxton’s Office, by stating thusly:

MY PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION IS NOW THE EXCLUSIVE PRIORITY HEREIN

Yesterday, the undersigned filed my Motion to Vacate All Child-Related Orders for Lack of Jurisdiction with the obligatory official Texas state form for challenging state statutes accompanying the same Motion, as well as a summary Notice of Constitutional Challenges to Texas State Statutory Schemes.  See the Docket for all three (3) said Oct. 6th, 2025 entries.
Thereby, I have formally raised herein, all in the manner as by law prescribed, multiple facial constitutional challenges to the assorted repugnant Texas state statutes complained of, and regardless of any pending matters herein, after filing said challenges, all other matters must wait.
Those constitutional challenges (pleas) to the jurisdiction of this Court take precedence and priority over any and all other claims and issues raised, bar none.  The trial court must determine at its earliest opportunity whether it has the constitutional or statutory authority to decide the case before allowing the litigation to proceed.  Texas Dept. Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 SW 3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004), citing Austin & N.W.R. Co. v. Cluck, 97 Tex. 172, 77 S.W. 403, 405 (1903) (“[T]here can be no doubt that the courts of Texas must look to the Constitution of this state, the enactments of the Legislature, and the common law for their authority to proceed ....);” see also State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex.1994) (“As a general proposition, before a court may address the merits of any case, the court must have jurisdiction over the party or the property subject to the suit, jurisdiction over the subject matter, jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, and capacity to act as a court.)”
A court must not act without determining that it has subject-matter jurisdiction to do so, and it should hear evidence as necessary to determine the issue before proceeding with the case.  Bland Independent School Dist. v. Blue, 34 SW 3d 547, 553-554 (Tex. 2000); Sykes v. State, 652 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, no writ); Ex parte Garza, 593 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1979) (“Jurisdictional issues must be resolved as a threshold matter to ensure the validity of subsequent rulings.”); Mapco, Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686, 687 (Tex. 1991) (“Orders issued without jurisdiction are void.”); In re United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 307 (Tex. 2010) (“Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and must be addressed as a threshold matter.”)  See also, Tex. Jur. 3d. Due Order of Pleading § 152.
Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement, can be raised at any time, and must be considered by a court sua sponte.  Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 358 (Tex. 2004); see also Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76 (Tex. 2000) (explaining that subject matter jurisdiction “cannot be conferred upon any court by consent or waiver”).  A judgment rendered without subject-matter jurisdiction is a legal nullity that cannot be ratified by time, procedural devices, or judicial intent.  PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 273 (Tex. 2012).
A court may not exercise judicial power until all threshold jurisdictional challenges are resolved. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993).
The Court’s failure to resolve the pending jurisdiction challenges before proceeding to any other matter would constitute clear reversible error.  In re Yancey, 550 S.W.3d 671, 673 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding); City of Houston v. Rhule, 417 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. 2013).
ONLY AG PAXTON’S OFFICE MAY DEFEND SAID PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
Other Parent has no authority to address said Motion to Vacate All Child-Related Orders for Lack of Jurisdiction, because it is solely about challenging the constitutionality of state statutes.
Only the Texas Attorney General has the sole and exclusive province, authority and power to defend the constitutionality of state statutes.  See, the Texas Constitution, Article IV, Section 22, also Texas Government Code, Title 4, Chapter 402, Section 402.010, and plethora of case law.
If Other Parent attempted to impersonate the function of the Attorney General in this most important matter of statewide public importance, s/he would be guilty of a third degree felony in violation of Texas Penal Code, Section 37.11(2), after already now being so duly advised herein.
THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO AG PAXTON
Respondent states that the Office of the Attorney General is not yet a party within this matter.
The filing of the official state form regarding constitutional challenges to state statutes has therefore triggered an express duty of the Court – to issue the proper and corresponding Notice package to Texas Attorney General Paxton of said constitutional challenges raised herein, in compliance with Texas Government Code Section 402.010(a), which package includes a copy of said official state form filed, along with a copy of the Motion to Vacate All Child-Related Orders for Lack of Jurisdiction with the official Texas state form filed for challenging said state statutes, as well as the summary Notice of Constitutional Challenges to Texas State Statutory Schemes.
The Court – and the Clerk’s personnel – are given this very short official guidance upon the duty task involved (methods of properly issuing Notice) as provided by the Texas Supreme Court:  https://www.txcourts.gov/rules-forms/challenging-the-constitutionality-of-a-state-statute
The above official webpage guidance expressly notes that the Clerk may use either the email address of const_claims@texasattorneygeneral.gov and/or may also send the Notice information package by certified or registered mail.
THE COURT MUST ALLOW AG PAXTON A MINIMUM OF FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS
Texas law mandates that AG Paxton be afforded a minimum of forty-five (45) days *after* said above Notice package has first been issued by the Court in which to appear and defend against challenged state statutes, see Texas Government Code Section 402.010(b), and of course the Office of the Attorney General may appear and defend sooner if it is willing and able.
Accordingly, the Court should not entertain any other matters, but first allow at least no less than the same forty-five (45) days, with consideration also included for additional time for reasonable responses and so forth thereto, so that the Office of Attorney General may so appear herein and reasonably address the various facial challenges to jurisdiction now formally raised.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
This Court presently has but express duties herein.  It cannot hear or consider anything else yet, but must: (a) abate/stay all other issues; (b) issue the proper Notice to Attorney General Paxton of said constitutional challenges raised herein, in compliance with Texas Government Code Section 402.010(a); and (c) set a proper and reasonable schedule towards the resolution of said constitutional challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction, allowing at minimum forty-five (45) days’ time in which the Attorney General may appear and defend said facial challenges herein raised unto said Texas statutes, plus, of course, allow reasonable time for responses and so forth.

WHEREFORE, the PartyLabel herein, FirstName LastName, moves the Court to comply with Texas Government Code Section 402.010(a) and issue proper Notice to Attorney General Paxton’s Office, further allowing Mr. Paxton’s Office a minimum of forty-five (45) days in which to appear and address said facial challenges, further moving to stay/abate all other issues until after the resolution of pleas to the jurisdiction are first completed as required by law, and PartyLabel prays for all other relief true, lawful, just and proper within these premises.

Dated:  October 7th, 2025
																																			Respectfully submitted,

																																			/s/ FirstName LastName
______________________________
																																			FirstName LastName
Street Address
City, State, ZIP
Tel:		(###) ###-###
Email:		myemailaddress@somewhere.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify: that on this __7th__ day of October, 2025, a true and complete copy of the foregoing plea to the jurisdiction and motion for continuance, by e-service to all registered filers of this case automatically provided via the Texas E-File system, has been duly served on:
(for Other Parent’s Name Here)														
Other Parent or Attorney Name														
Address Line 1																									
Address Line 2 as needed																		
City, State, ZIP																									

																																			/s/ FirstName LastName
______________________________
																																			FirstName LastName