immediate question concerning the welfare of the child.” Bradshaw’s third issue is overruled. Temporary Orders In his fifth issue, Bradshaw argues that Judge Rynd abused his discretion when he granted emergency temporary orders giving Juarez the right to determine C.S.B.’s primary residence for an indefinite period and excluding Bradshaw from possession and access to C.S.B. Juarez responds that Judge Rynd wanted to give the court in Virginia time to address the custody issue. The portion of the September 10, 2008 order, relevant to this issue, states: Additionally, in accordance with § 157.374 of the Texas Family Code, the Court finds that a serious and immediate question exists as to the welfare of the child based on the actions of the father, DAV -San Antonio 1986, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>); Young v. Martinez, 685 S.W.2d 361, 363
holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children holding order awarding father temporary partial custody prior to custody hearing was not final and appealable under rule 341 holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period holding that temporary order completely transferred custody without setting further hearing writ action was fully terminated and final adjudication of custody was affected holding that the uccja applied to a california child custody order granting temporary custody of two children to their father