Robert Epstein, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Employer-Paid Insurance Premiums Are Not Net Resources for Texas Child-Support Calculation

Published on: September 6, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-531351317 When a court determines the amount of Texas child support a parent is obligated to pay, it must consider that parent’s net resources. The statute sets forth certain items to be included in the parent’s net resources and other items that are not to be included. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.062. An appeals court recently had to determine if a trial court could consider an item that is not specifically included in the statute.

The divorce decree required the father to pay child support, provide health insurance, and reimburse the mother for 50% of non-covered health-care expenses.

Mother Moves for Modification

The mother subsequently moved to modify the decree to change the father’s possession and access and to increase his child-support obligation. She also moved to enforce the decree, claiming the father failed to reimburse her for health-care expenses.

Texas Court Grants Divorce and Denies Annulment

Published on: August 21, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1270267953 Marriages in Texas are generally presumed to be valid. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1.101. In some cases, however, a party may seek to have a marriage determined to be invalid by pursuing an annulment. When a person petitions for annulment, they are taking the position that the marriage was not valid and should be declared void. One reason a party may seek an annulment is if they were induced to enter the marriage through fraud, duress, or force by the other party. A party may only be granted an annulment on these grounds if they did not voluntarily live with the other party after finding out about the fraud or no longer being under duress or force. Tex. Fam. Code § 6.107. A divorce suit, however, presumes the marriage was valid, but asks that it be dissolved.

Trial Court Grants Divorce instead of Annulment

A former husband recently appealed his divorce, arguing that the court should have granted his petition for annulment instead of the wife’s counter-petition for divorce. They were both Chinese nationals living in different cities in Texas and got married days before the husband’s last interview for his green card. The wife was attending university in Odessa on a non-immigrant student visa at the time. Before the marriage, they agreed they would live apart until the wife graduated, but that the wife would move into off-campus housing so the husband could visit her. They also agreed she would move to San Antonio, where the husband lived, after graduation. She instead ultimately rented a room in Odessa.

The wife got a green card in 2016 based on her marriage. The husband became concerned she married him to speed up her immigration. He petitioned for annulment on the grounds of fraud in July 2017. The wife subsequently counter-petitioned for divorce.

Texas Court Gives Father Custody after Mother Seeks Modification

Published on: August 1, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1147846829 A court may generally only modify a Texas custody order if the modification is in the best interest of the child and there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the previous order was rendered or the parties signed the settlement agreement. The court may also modify an order if the modification is in the child’s best interest and an older child has told the court his or her preference or if the parent with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence voluntarily gave up primary care or possession of the child for six months or more. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.101.

In some cases, when one parent seeks a modification, the trial court may instead grant a modification requested by the other parent. In a recent case, a mother challenged a modification giving the father the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence after she had initially moved for a modification to expand the geographic restriction on the child’s primary residence.

Mother Files Modification Suit

Following the parties’ divorce, the mother had the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence in one of two counties. She petitioned for modification eight years later, seeking increased child support and the right to designate the child’s primary residence in one of the counties or any contiguous county. The father requested the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within that designated county.

Texas Contractual Alimony Claim Barred by Contract Statute of Limitations

Published on: July 11, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1183385986-scaled Texas divorce cases can involve multiple areas of law. Contract law applies to pre-marital and post-marital agreements. Contract law may also apply to agreements the parties enter into as part of a divorce. In a recent case, a portion of a wife’s claims for contractual alimony was barred by the contract statute of limitations.

When the parties divorced in 2012, they entered into a written agreement. Their divorce decree included a provision for “Contractual Alimony,” with the parties agreeing that the husband would pay the wife $4,000 per month, payable on the first of the month with a five-day grace period before the payment would be considered late. The contractual alimony was to be paid from June 2013 to May 2015. The decree further stated that the wife could accelerate the payments if the husband defaulted and failed to cure within 30 days of receiving notice of intent to accelerate.

Wife Moves to Enforce Contractual Alimony

The wife moved to enforce the alimony requirements on March 26, 2019. She alleged the husband had failed to make the payments starting in December 2013. She asked the court to order him to pay the past due payments, interest, and fees and costs.

Genetic Testing of Presumed Father in Texas Paternity Case

Published on: June 24, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1033856542 Texas family law presumes a man is the father of a child in certain circumstances, including when he is married to the child’s mother at the time of the birth or when he continuously resides with the child for the first two years of the child’s life and holds himself out to others as the child’s father. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.204. A Texas trial court must generally order genetic testing to determine parentage if one of the parties requests it, but that is not the case if there is a presumed father. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.502. When there is a presumed father, the court may deny the request for genetic testing if the conduct of the requesting party estops them from denying parentage and it would be inequitable to disprove the presumed father’s parentage. In deciding whether to deny a request for genetic testing, the court must consider the child’s best interests, including certain enumerated factors. Tex. Fam. Code § 160.608

A man recently challenged a court’s order for genetic testing and subsequent adjudication that he was not the child’s father. The child was born while the appellant was in a relationship with the child’s mother. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the appellant was aware he was not the child’s biological father but agreed to be listed as the father on the birth certificate. The appellant and the mother broke up, but the appellant continued to see the child nearly every day. The mother subsequently denied him access to the child after they were unable to reach a child-support agreement.

Man Petitions to Adjudicate Paternity

The appellant petitioned to be named a joint managing conservator of the child in 2016. The trial court ordered genetic testing. When the results showed the appellant was not the child’s biological father, the trial court adjudicated him not to be the child’s father. The appellant then appealed and asked the appeals court to name him joint managing conservator.

Joint Managing Conservators Do Not Have to Have Equal Possession in Texas Custody Order

Published on: June 2, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

5thingsdivorcecourt_header A court should consider a number of factors in deciding a Texas custody case. Even when the court determines the parents should be joint managing conservators, the court does not have to award equal periods of possession and access to the child to each parent. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.135. Under Texas law, there is a rebuttable presumption that the standard possession order serves the child’s best interests. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.252. A father recently challenged the divorce decree giving the mother the right to designate the child’s primary residence and awarding him the standard possession order.

Trial Court Initially Awards Father Primary Custody

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties’ child was born about three months after they married in 2014. The parties separated in 2016 and the mother petitioned for divorce in March 2017. The court signed temporary order giving the father the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence in Travis County.

At the custody hearing, there was evidence the mother had sustained a serious brain injury the previous year. There was significant testimony about her mental health before and after the separation and about how her injury affected her ability to take care of the child.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Custody Modification Following Alleged Assault and Abuse

Published on: May 23, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1163040189 A Texas custody order may only be modified in certain circumstances. The parents may agree to change the order. The court may order modification if the child is at least twelve years old and wants to change which parent has primary custody. Otherwise, the parent seeking the modification must generally show that there has been a material and substantial change in the circumstances of the child or a parent since the current order was rendered. The court must consider the facts and circumstances of the specific case to determine if there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances. Common situations that may lead to a material and substantial change in circumstances include marriage, a change in employment, or relocation of a parent’s primary residence. Courts have also recognized changes related to the relationship between the parent and child, including abuse, mistreatment, or “poisoning the child’s mind.” In all cases, the modification must be in the child’s best interest.

Mother and Father Agree to Custody Modification

In a recent case, a father challenged a modification sought by the mother. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parents divorced in 2012 and entered into an agreed order to modify custody in 2016. Pursuant to the 2016 modification, the mother was given the right to determine the children’s residence within a specified geographic restriction. The father was awarded custody beyond the standard order. The agreed order did not require either parent to pay child support.

After one of the children broke an arm, the mother moved to modify that order and the court entered the modification in 2018. The new order required the father to pay child support and changed his custody schedule. He appealed.

Texas Custody Schedule Changed Due to School Absences

Published on: May 2, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

iStock-1252096710 A parent’s behavior may affect their rights to access and possession of their child in a Texas custody case. In a recent case, the trial court’s order provided that the schedule would change if the child had a certain number of unexcused absences or instances of tardiness while in the mother’s care.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the trial court entered a custom possession order (CPO) as part of a modification order at the end of January 2020. Pursuant to the CPO, the father had the right to possession of the child from Wednesday morning to Friday morning each week and from Friday morning to Monday morning every other weekend, and the parents alternated holidays and school breaks. The CPO also provided that the mother’s possession schedule would change to the Standard Possession Schedule if the child had a total of any combination of five unexcused absences and “tardies” from school, as determined by the school, while in the mother’s possession.

Father Moves to Impose Standard Possession Order

The father moved to confirm and clarify the order and requested an injunction in April 2020. He alleged the child had been tardy five days and absent two days during the fall semester of 2019. He asked the court to confirm and clarify that the standard possession schedule was in effect and to grant an injunction.

Equitable Property Distribution in Texas Divorce

Published on: April 11, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

does-adultery-affect-alimony-in-idaho-1080x600-1 In a Texas divorce, the court must divide the property in a just and right manner. The requirement is that the division be equitable, but not necessarily equal. The Texas Supreme Court identified several factors courts should consider in Murff v. Murff. These factors include the parties’ physical conditions, education, financial condition, abilities, and ages. A husband recently challenged a trial court’s division of the marital property following a mediated settlement agreement between the parties.

The parties married in 1999 and the wife initiated divorce proceedings in 2017. Pursuant to a temporary order, the marital home was sold and about $500,000 in sales proceeds were put into an escrow account. The court signed an agreed order allowing disbursement of an equal portion of the proceeds to pay each party’s divorce attorneys. The rest of the proceeds was left in the escrow account.

Default Judgment in a Texas Divorce Case

Published on: March 22, 2021 | by Robert Epstein

When a spouse petitions for a Texas divorce, the other spouse must file an answer. If the other spouse fails to do so, the court may render a default judgment. Under certain circumstances, however, the other spouse may get the default judgment overturned. In a recent case, a husband sought to overturn a default judgment entered against him.

According to the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion, the wife filed for divorce. The trial court granted her motion for alternative service at the home of her husband’s mother. The trial court ultimately entered a no-answer default judgment the following January.