Kelly McClure, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies When a Jury Verdict Controls a Child’s Primary Residence

Published on: September 8, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

When parents are going through a custody dispute, it can be difficult to understand what role the judge and jury play in the custody award. A question that arose in a recent Texas Supreme Court case was: if a jury decides that the children should primarily live with one parent, can a judge still give the other parent more time with the children? The court addressed the issue and clarified that a judge cannot use a possession schedule to effectively override the jury’s decision about which parent will have the children’s primary residence. Gopalan v. Marsh, No. 25-0161, slip op. at 12–13 (Tex. May 22, 2026).

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from the divorce of Prabhakar Gopalan and Andrea Marsh following their nine-year marriage. The parents agreed to joint managing conservatorship of their two children, but they disputed the allocation of parental rights, possession, and other issues concerning the children. After a five-day jury trial, the jury determined that Gopalan should have the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence within Travis County.

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies That CPS Cannot Require a Parent to Divorce to Keep Parental Rights

Published on: August 21, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

A recent opinion from the Texas Supreme Court addresses an important limitation on the State’s authority in parental termination cases involving domestic violence. Although Texas law requires parents to protect their children from abusive environments, the Court reaffirmed that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) cannot require a parent to divorce an abusive spouse as a prerequisite to retaining parental rights. Rather, termination must rest on the statutory requirements established by the Texas Family Code and the evidence presented in the individual case. In re H.S., B.S., and M.S., Children, No. 24-0307 (Tex. June 5, 2026).

Background of the Case

DFPS became involved with a family following repeated incidents of domestic violence between the parents. The record reflected that the father physically assaulted the mother on multiple occasions, including sexually touching her, threatening her with a firearm, damaging property during violent outbursts, and engaging in self-harming behavior in the presence of the children.

Recent Case Demonstrates Why Precise Premarital Agreement Language Matters for Business Owners in Texas

Published on: August 10, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

Texas law allows prospective spouses to alter many of the default rules governing marital property through a premarital agreement. When a valid agreement clearly defines how property will be characterized, courts generally enforce those terms rather than rewrite the parties’ bargain to achieve what might otherwise be viewed as a “just and right” result. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 4.001-4.010; Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001.

A recent decision from the Third Court of Appeals illustrates why this principle is particularly important for high-net-worth business owners whose wealth is tied to closely held companies, corporate distributions, and evolving business interests. Henry Hutcherson III v. Tina Hutcherson, No. 03-24-00297-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 19, 2026).

The Content of the Premarital Agreement

Why Financial Tracing Matters More Than Family Testimony in Texas Divorce

Published on: July 27, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

High-net-worth divorces often involve inherited wealth, family gifts, investment accounts, and closely held business interests that one spouse believes should remain separate property. Under Texas law, however, having witnesses assert that an asset is separate property is not enough.

A recent decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals demonstrates how that burden is applied in practice. In O’Connor v. O’Connor, the court examined whether testimony from multiple family members could establish that mineral interests acquired during the marriage were purchased with the husband’s separate property.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not satisfy Texas tracing requirements because the financial documentation left critical gaps. (O’Connor v. O’Connor, No. 03-23-00407-CV, 2025 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Austin July 30, 2025).

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Required to Support Spousal Maintenance Award

Published on: July 13, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

A spouse seeking post-divorce maintenance in Texas must establish that they lack sufficient property to provide for minimum reasonable needs. While that requirement appears straightforward, disputes frequently arise regarding what evidence is necessary to satisfy the statutory standard. In Mehta v. Mehta, the Texas Supreme Court addressed that issue and clarified the type of evidence trial courts may consider when evaluating a request for spousal maintenance. Mehta v. Mehta, No. 23-0507 (Tex. June 20, 2025).

Background of the Case

Hannah and Manish Mehta were married for more than twenty years and had triplets during the marriage. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hannah largely stepped away from the workforce and became the children’s primary caregiver. One of the children suffered from significant medical conditions that required extensive supervision and daily care.

Texas Supreme Court Denies Review in Child Custody and Termination Appeal

Published on: June 30, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

The Texas Supreme Court recently denied review in a child custody case, leaving the underlying appellate decision fully intact without a written explanation, in In the Interest of E.A.G., No. 09-24-00174-CV (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2025). The order stresses an important facet of Texas family law: in most custody and parental-rights cases, the court of appeals is effectively the final stop in the litigation process.

The denial also reflects the limited circumstances in which the Texas Supreme Court exercises discretionary review over family law matters, even where the stakes involve termination of parental rights or long-term conservatorship determinations.

The Underlying Appeal

Refinements to the Texas Family Code Regarding “Mixed-Character” Assets in Divorces

Published on: June 28, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

Texas operates under a steadfast community property framework. Under Texas Family Code § 3.003, all property possessed by either spouse during or at the dissolution of a marriage is presumed to be community property. Overcoming this hurdle requires “clear and convincing evidence,” a stringent standard of proof that frequently forces divorcing couples into a financial war, calling in reinforcements from costly forensic accountants.

The complexity intensifies when a single asset holds both separate and community characteristics. With statutory refinements to Chapter 3 of the Texas Family Code, the legislature has delivered guidance to eliminate judicial ambiguity in high-stakes estates. For business owners, corporate executives, and high-net-worth individuals, these updates dramatically change how complex, “mixed-character” assets are divided.

Executive Compensation: From Subjective Formulas to Rigid Fractions

Texas Appeals Court Holds Guaranteed Post-Divorce Payments Cannot Be Altered After Change in Circumstances

Published on: June 22, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

Texas divorce settlements frequently involve structured payment arrangements designed to account for illiquid assets, business interests, and future cash flow. A recent decision from the Austin Court of Appeals illustrates the importance of carefully drafting those obligations and understanding the finality of Texas property divisions once a divorce decree is entered.

Case Background

In P.J.S. v. K.S.S., the parties negotiated a divorce settlement that included a series of monthly “Guaranteed Payments” from the husband to the wife. The payment structure was tied to the husband’s ownership interests in various business entities and was incorporated into the final divorce decree. P.J.S. v. K.S.S., No. 03-24-00042-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24, 2026).

Texas Appeals Court Addresses Conflict-of-Interest Lawsuit Against Divorce Attorney

Published on: June 14, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

Texas courts continue to apply strict standards to attorney conflicts of interest in family law disputes, particularly where an attorney previously represented one spouse, or both spouses, in prior legal matters. A recent opinion from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin highlights how allegations involving prior representation, confidential information, and nondisclosure may support disqualifications in divorce proceedings. Jason Murray Davis and Davis & Santos, P.C. v. Graham Weston, No. 03-22-00378-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 30, 2026, no pet.).

Background

The underlying dispute arose from divorce proceedings between Graham Weston and Elizabeth Weston. The attorney at issue had previously represented Graham Weston and related business entities over a period of years in matters tied to the family’s financial and corporate interests. The latter representation of Elizabeth Weston in divorce litigation against Graham formed the basis of the conflict allegations. (Graham had previously filed for divorce, then nonsuited the petition and was not represented by Davis during that initial divorce filing.)

Texas Rule 166a Revisions May Accelerate Divorce Litigation Timelines

Published on: June 10, 2026 | by Kelly McClure

The Texas Supreme Court’s March 2026 revisions to Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure substantially changed summary judgment practice in Texas civil litigation. While the amendments were not directed specifically at family law cases, the procedural changes are expected to affect the pace and management of contested divorce proceedings, particularly those involving property characterization disputes, reimbursement claims, fiduciary-duty allegations, and enforcement actions.

Filing Dates Now Control Summary Judgment Deadlines

Prior versions of Rule 166a tied most deadlines to the hearing date selected by the movant. The revised rule instead measures deadlines from the date the motion itself is filed. Under amended Rule 166a, a response is generally due 21 days after the motion is filed, while the movant’s reply is due seven days later. The court must then set the hearing or submission within designated periods. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(d)-(f).