for the court to exercise jurisdiction over Dawson-Austin. Austin bought his Dallas home, opened his Texas bank accounts, and brought his Starkey stock certificate to Texas after he separated from Dawson-Austin. We do not believe that one spouse may leave the other, move to another state in which neither has ever lived, buy a home or open a bank account or store a stock certificate there, and by those unilateral actions, and nothing more, compel the other spouse to litigate their divorce in the new domicile consistent with due process. One spouse cannot, solely by actions in which the other spouse is not involved, create the contacts between a state and the other spouse necessary for jurisdiction over a divorce action. See In the Interest of S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80, 83-84 (Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Dawson-Austin’s claim to a part of
holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation holding that when evidence did not prove dependency of child as alleged in complaint but revealed pure custody dispute juvenile court was without jurisdiction to determine custody of child holding that psychological parent was not entitled to custody or visitation holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet