Articles Posted in Child Custody

When a parent petitions for modification of a Texas custody order, the parties may raise multiple issues.  In a recent case, a mother challenged a modification order, arguing the trial court had erred in not submitting one of her proposed questions to the jury.

Original Modification Proceedings

The parties had two children together.  The trial court initially appointed them both joint managing conservators with neither having the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence, pursuant to the parties’ Mediated Settlement Agreement.

The father subsequently petitioned for modification, alleging both parents being joint managing conservators was not in the children’s best interest.  He sought sole managing conservatorship, or, alternatively, the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence.

Continue Reading ›

Texas custody cases involving multiple children can be complex, because the children may not have the same needs.  In a recent case, a father challenged a modification that gave the mother rights with regard to the youngest child that he was awarded for the older two children.

The parents got married in 2006 and divorced in 2017.  They had three children.  In the agreed divorce decree, both parents were named joint managing conservators with shared possession of the children.  In November 2020, the father petitioned for modification, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances related to one child’s emotional health and welfare. He subsequently amended the petition to alleged the same regarding another of the children, and ultimately filed an amended petition seeking relief for all three of the children.

The court held a bench trial and signed a partially handwritten memorandum, with a note that the mother’s attorney would draft the final order.  Although the memorandum was entered in early November 2022, the parties did not receive it until April 2023.

Continue Reading ›

Generally, to obtain modification of a Texas custody or child support order, a parent must show that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior order.  Texas courts have held that a parent alleging a material and substantial change of circumstances in their counter-petition has judicially admitted the existence of a material and substantial change in circumstances.  In a recent case, a mother appealed an order granting the father’s counterpetition request for modification after granting summary judgment against her modification petition.

Proceedings

The parties got divorced in 2017 and entered into a mediated settlement agreement (“MSA”).  The MSA named the parties joint managing conservators of their child and placed a geographic restriction of Lubbock County on the child’s residence.  It stated that if either party moved out of the county, the parent who remained would get the exclusive right to designate the child’s residence in Lubbock County.

The mother got married again and moved to Indiana in September 2020.  The father stayed in Lubbock County. The mother petitioned for modification giving her the right to designate the child’s primary residence with no geographic restriction and additional child support.

Continue Reading ›

Parents generally have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding their children. In Texas, there is presumption that being raised by the parents is in the child’s best interest.  This presumption can be rebutted if the court finds appointment of a nonparent is in the child’s best interest and the parent “voluntarily relinquished actual care, control, and possession of the child to a nonparent . . .” for at least a year, with part of that time being within 90 days before the date suit was filed.  Tex. Fam. Code 153.373. A grandmother recently appealed a directed verdict in favor of the child’s father in a Texas custody case, arguing he had voluntarily relinquished care, control, and possession of the child to her.

According to the opinion of the appeals court, the child lived with his maternal grandmother after the mother’s death in 2019.  The father initially petitioned to adjudicate parentage in April 2021, requesting genetic testing and to be named the child’s sole managing conservator.  The grandmother asked for both parties to be joint managing conservators, with her having the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence.

The parties signed a Mediated Settlement Agreement for temporary orders (“MSA”) that provided the father was adjudicated the child’s father based on genetic testing and the father would have possession of the child on mutual agreement of the parties, or set periods if the parties did not agree.  The court signed the agreed temporary orders.

Continue Reading ›

In a Texas custody case, the court must designate who will determine the child’s primary residence and establish the geographic area within which the child’s primary residence must be or specify that there is no geographic restriction.  Tex. Fam. Code § 153.134(b)(1).  The court bases its determination on the specific facts of the case.  The trial court also has discretion to impose restrictions on a parent’s possession and access to the child that are in the child’s best interest.  A father recently challenged a number of issues related to his possession and access to his children.

According to the opinion of the appeals court, the parties married in 2017 and had two children together.  The mother petitioned for divorce in 2020, requesting the father have supervised possession of the children, submit to random alcohol and drug testing, and use a Soberlink monitoring device.  A number of witnesses testified, including a custody evaluation expert and a co-parenting therapist, both of whom the court found credible.  The final divorce decree named the parties joint managing conservators but gave the mother the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence with a geographic restriction of Williamson and contiguous counties.  The order provided for a step-up possession schedule for the father and limited both parents’ romantic partners being around the children.

Geographic Restriction

The father appealed, challenging the geographic restriction. He argued it should be limited to Williamson County without including contiguous counties. He argued that it could be very difficult for him to attend activities and appointments if the children lived an hour away.

Continue Reading ›

To modify a Texas custody order, the court must find that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances and that the modification would be in the children’s best interest.  In a recent case, a mother challenged the court’s finding that it was in the children’s best interest for the father to be the sole managing conservator following involvement by the Department of Family and Protective Services.

History

When the parents divorced, they were named joint managing conservators and the mother was awarded the right to designate the children’s primary residence.

The mother testified that the father did not regularly visit the children or telephone them.  She said she “moved a lot” with the children and did not communicate with them.  She was homeless for a week or two. The children stayed in with their father’s mother while the mother stayed in her car.

Continue Reading ›

The Seventh District Court of Appeals recently considered a case involving significant issues of custody and child support. The trial court had appointed the father sole managing conservator and ordered him to pay child support to the mother. Both parents appealed.

Sole Managing Conservator

The mother argued the trial court erred in finding an incident in June 2021 prevented it from appointing both parents joint managing conservators.  According to the appeals court, the mother pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault on the father as a result of the referenced incident.  The trial court found a history of abuse by the mother against the father and that the mother pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault on the father regarding an incident on or about June 13, 2021. The court named the father sole managing conservator and the mother possessory conservator.  The court stated in its conclusions of law that “[b]ecause Petitioner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault of Respondent, the Court cannot appoint the parties joint managing conservators.” The mother argued, based on this statement, that the trial court had concluded it was required to find a history of abuse based only on the guilty plea.

Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(b), prohibits a court from appointing joint managing conservators there is credible evidence “of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child . . .” The statute does not define the meaning of “history.”  The appeals court noted that it had not held that a single instance of physical abuse against the other parent necessarily constitutes a history of abuse, but had ruled that the trial court has the discretion to conclude that a single incident can constitute a history.  The appeals court therefore concluded that the trial court could have found the mother’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor assault charge sufficient to prove the existence of a history of abuse against the child’s father.

Continue Reading ›

Generally, all evidence in a Texas custody case should be presented at trial.  In some cases, however, the court may decide to reopen evidence pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270.  In a recent case, a mother challenged the court’s custody order after it reopened evidence following the trial.

The only issue at trial was who would be primary conservator and get child support.  The court expressed an intent to give the mother the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence at the end of the trial.

The father subsequently moved to reopen evidence, seeking permission to present evidence on the child’s best interest.  He argued the mother had presented evidence of a stable relationship with a person identified by the court as “B.J.,” but misrepresented her relationship and he had not way of knowing this information before trial.  He argued she testified she and B.J. were in a stable relationship and cohabitating without mentioning a new romantic interest.  He argued she had represented her relationship as more stable than his.  He argued the court indicated the decision was close and this evidence could have been a deciding factor.

Continue Reading ›

Substance abuse can be devastating to families.  Texas family law recognizes the risk to children from parental substance abuse and seeks to protect them.

Termination of Parental Rights

One of the most severe potential consequences of substance abuse is termination of parental rights.  The court may terminate the parental rights of a parent who is the cause of a child being born addicted to alcohol or an illegal controlled substance.  Additionally, a court may order termination of parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent used a controlled substance in a way that endangered the child’s health or safety and either failed to complete a court-ordered treatment program or continued to abuse a controlled substance after completing a court-ordered program. Tex. Fam. § Code 161.001.

Custody and Visitation

Even when parental substance abuse does not result in termination of parental rights, it can still have a significant result on custody and visitation.  The Texas Family Code includes a stated public policy to both ensure that children have frequent contact with parents who act in their best interest and to provide children with a safe, stable and nonviolent environment.  The primary consideration in custody matters is the child’s best interest.

Continue Reading ›

Parents sometimes have difficulty getting their child’s other parent to comply with a Texas custody or visitation order.  If a parent fails to comply with requirements to exchange the child, the other parent may seek enforcement of the court’s order, sometimes through contempt.  In a recent case, a father challenged a court’s contempt order.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the trial court entered a standard possession order in 2012 that set forth where the exchanges were to occur.  When the mother’s possession ended, the exchange occurred at her home.  When the father’s possession ended, it occurred at either his home or the mother’s home, depending upon circumstances set forth in the order.  The trial court signed a modification order on the mother’s motion in March 2017 that changed the exchange location to the police department parking lot.  The modification order also allowed the parties to change the location in writing.  In August 2017, the parties entered a Rule 11 agreement moving the exchange location to a different police department parking lot and the court signed and the court signed an order adopting their agreement.

The mother filed a motion for enforcement by contempt in 2023.  She relied on the original 2012 order and the 2017 modification order. The father moved for a directed verdict because the mother did not plead “the date, the time, and the place of the alleged violations,” but the motion was denied.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information