To enforce an out of state child support judgment, is a formal motion to register it required?

In Texas the father of two children sued to get paid back-child support he claimed from their mother under a modified Louisiana domestic-relations order. He put copies of the orders in his first amended collection motion and simultaneously documented mailing copies of the old orders to mother. He clearly did not follow all the procedures of Texas Family Code section 159.602 to register out-of -state judgments under the Uniform Interstate Child Support Family Support Act.
The trial judge dismissed the case because the father never filed a separate motion to register the orders, and-- therefore-- the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Beaumont Ninth Court of Appeals justice Leann Johnson, wrote for a panel including Justices Charles Kreger and Hollis Horton reversing and remanding the trial court judgment because the father reasonably communicated to the trial court and to the mother that he wanted two orders registered and which they were. The Ninth Court of Appeals followed Kendall v. Kendall, 340 S.W.3d 483, 500-01 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) which held that failure to follow all the details of Tex. Fam. Code sec. 159.602 did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.
The opinion seems reasonable and will tend to simplify practice without depriving anyone of any material rights. The opinion notes that the father and his counsel were not present at the dispositive trial court hearing, but did not say why. The opinion put shudder quotes around the word proof in discussing the father's proof of mailing of the orders-- I am very curious why, but couldn't figure it out.
In re T.F. and T.F., (No. 09-14-00064-CV, Tex. App.-- Beaumont, Jan. 15, 2015) (mem. op.) (no pet. h.)

Federal Appeals in Texas and Other Parts of the U.S. South

U.S. federal courts are generally organized into district courts, courts of appeals and then the Supreme Court of the United States. The most common federal court that does not fit in this structure is bankruptcy courts, which are below district courts. District courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal government. Appeals from bankruptcy court can go to district court or a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of bankruptcy judges, depending on whether the local federal jurisdiction has set up BAPs. Texas has four federal judicial districts- eastern, northern, southern, and western. I won't go into the boundaries of the districts- they're pretty common-sensical, and you can look them up with the link above.

The courts of appeals for federal district courts are organized into circuits. The Fifth Circuit covers appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Before October 1, 1981, it also included Florida, Georgia and Alabama, but then an Eleventh Circuit was formed for them. It is important to remember if you are citing southern cases from around that time, that Fifth Circuit precedents bind the Eleventh Circuit for cases decided before October 1, 1981. Besides appeals from district courts, the Circuits also hear appeals from some federal agency decisions and from the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Federal jurisdiction is limited. Unless the United States Constitution or a statute allowed by it provides for federal jurisdiction of a matter, the presumption is that federal courts do not have jurisdiction. This contrasts with U.S. state court jurisdiction where there should be some court for nearly any dispute.

Lethal Injection Too Good for Them

Now, in addition to trying to kill death row inmates, the State of Louisiana is additionally suing them all also.
To head off challenges to Louisana's death sentence execution protocols under her Administrative Procedure Act, the State is suing every death row inmate to bind them to a declaratory judgment that death penalty procedures are not subject to the act. Louisiana authorities filed their countersuit after death row convict Nathaniel Code challenged challenged Louisiana's procedures as inconsistent with the Act. Some states have held that death procedures have to go through administrative procedures such as rule postings, public comment periods, hearings, etc.; others have not.
Texas prison prosecutors brought a marijuana possession charge against a death row inmate. People at the prison public defender's office there marvelled at the bureaucratic mind. Putting them to death was not enough, they had to be prosecuted for pot, too.
Hat tip to Hon. Craig Estlinbaum of Adjunct Law Profs Blog for this.