Modification

Modification vs. Clarification in Texas Custody Cases

Published on: August 15, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

5thingsdivorcecourt_header-300x163 A court may clarify an order in a Texas suit affecting the parent-child relationship if it finds the order lacks sufficient specificity to be enforced through contempt. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.421. The court cannot make substantive changes through an order to clarify and such changes are not enforceable. Tex. Fam. Code § 157.423. Substantive changes must be pursued through a modification suit. Generally, to obtain a modification, a parent must show there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances and the modification will be in the child’s best interest.

Mother Appeals Clarification Order

A mother recently challenged a clarification order, arguing it had made a substantive change to the previous order. The parties entered into an agreed order regarding their children in December 2016. The father moved for clarification of language relating to extracurricular activities. The agreed order provided in relevant part that the parents would put each child in a single extracurricular activity at a time and have a written agreement regarding the extracurricular activity. The court granted the motion and revised the language to state that each parent may place each child in an extracurricular activity, but, instead of referencing an agreement, the clarified order provided there would be a written designation of the extracurricular activity.

The mother appealed, arguing the court erred in granting the motion because the language in the agreed order was not ambiguous or erroneous and that the revised language constituted a substantive change.

Texas Modification of Person With the Exclusive Right to Designate Child’s Primary Residence

Published on: July 11, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-839381426-300x200 When a parent seeks modification of Texas custody, they generally must show there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior order was rendered and that the change is in the best interest of the children. A parent petitioning to change the designation of the parent with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within one year of the prior order must also attach an affidavit making one of three allegations. The affidavit may allege the child’s current environment may endanger their physical health or significantly impair their emotional development. If the person with the exclusive right to designate the primary resident is seeking or consenting to the modification, the affidavit may allege the modification is in the best interest of the child. Finally, the affidavit may allege that the person with the exclusive right has voluntarily surrendered the child’s primary care and possession for six months or more and that the change is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.102(a).

In a recent case, a father appealed a summary judgment denying his petition for modification. The parents were named joint managing conservators of the children in the 2014 divorce decree, but neither was given the exclusive right to determine their residence. In 2018, the trial court gave the mother that right, with a geographic restriction.

Father Files Modification Suit

The father petitioned to modify the order, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances and that the children’s current environment could endanger their health or significantly impair their emotional development. He further alleged the modification would be in the best interest of the children. He also alleged the mother neglected the children.

Decision-Making Rights in Texas Joint Managing Conservatorship

Published on: June 10, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1163040189-300x200 When parents cannot cooperate to make decisions regarding the children in a Texas custody case, the court may give one parent certain decision-making rights, even if the parents are joint managing conservators. In a recent case, a father challenged a court order requiring him to cooperate in the children’s activities and to pay for half of the children’s tutoring expenses.

The parents were named joint managing conservators of the children in the divorce decree with a modified standard possession order. The mother was granted the exclusive right to designate their primary residence and the father ordered to pay child support. Each parent was responsible for half of any extracurricular activity the parents agreed upon.

Mother Files Modification Suit

The mother petitioned for modification in 2018, seeking the right to make certain decisions after consulting with the father, continuation of certain extracurricular activities, and therapy for the children. In a counterpetition, the father asked the court to give him the right to designate the primary residence and receive child support. He also asked that the mother be required to schedule extracurricular activities only while she had the children.

Texas Court Allows Mother to Travel Internationally with the Child

Published on: June 8, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1183307633-300x169 Generally, when a parent wants to modify the parent-child relationship over the objection of the other parent, they must show the court that there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances and that the modification is in the child’s best interest. Often, modifications address major issues, such as where the child lives or the amount of child support. Modifications can address a variety of issues, however, including things like which parent makes medical or education decisions or whether a parent can travel with the child.

A father recently challenged a court order allowing a mother to travel internationally with the child. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parents were named joint managing conservators of the child when they divorced in 2017. The mother was granted primary custody. The following year, the mother petitioned for a modification, requesting the right to get a passport for the child and take her to visit her maternal grandfather in The Gambia. The father objected and the trial court denied the request.

Mother Leaves Child with Relative During International Trip

The mother went to see her parents in The Gambia in July 2019. She testified the father did not respond when she notified him she planned to travel, so she left the child with an aunt in Chicago.

Texas Court Finds Mother Is Intentionally Unemployed

Published on: April 26, 2022 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1331374129-300x200 When a parent is intentionally unemployed, a court may order Texas child support based on that parent’s earning potential. Tex. Fam. Code 154.066(a). A mother recently challenged a court’s finding she was intentionally unemployed, arguing instead that her mental health concerns prevented her from being employed.

When the parents divorced in 2010, the court ordered the mother to pay $150 in child support.

She sought to modify the custody order in 2018, and the other party responded by asking for more child support. The mother asked the court to eliminate her child-support obligation altogether.

Credibility and Evidence in Texas Child-Support Modification Proceeding

Published on: February 27, 2022 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-483611874-300x200 A modification of Texas child support requires the parent seeking the modification to show there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances since the current order was rendered. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.401. A change in income may be a material and substantial change. A court’s primary consideration should be the child’s best interest.

A father recently appealed the denial of his petition for modification of child support.

The parties divorced in 2018. The father agreed to pay $2,000 in monthly child support, to provide health insurance, to make monthly payments for a credit card balance that had been used for his business, and to pay the mother $50,000 in $1,500 monthly payments for her community interest in the business.

Medical Expense Reimbursement as Texas Child Support

Published on: October 31, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

does-adultery-affect-alimony-in-idaho-1080x600-1 Children’s medical and educational expenses can often be a contentious issue in Texas child-support cases. Parents may disagree on whether treatment is needed, what providers should be used, and whether the child should be in private school. A father recently challenged an order to pay certain medical expenses, arguing the mother had not used preferred providers as required by the decree.

The final divorce decree appointed both parents joint managing conservators with the mother having the right to establish the primary residence with a geographical restriction. The mother was responsible for maintaining the children’s health insurance. The father had an expanded modified possession order and paid child support and reimbursement of insurance premiums as additional child support. Each party was responsible for 50% of additional health-care expenses.

Father Seeks Modification of Divorce Decree

The father petitioned for modification in 2018, seeking the exclusive right to establish the primary residence, as well as child support and certain exclusive decision-making authority.

Texas Grandmother Must Overcome Fit-Parent Presumption to Become Possessory Conservator

Published on: September 22, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1147846829 Grandparents sometime take on a parental role in the lives of their grandchildren. In some circumstances, such grandparents may have standing (i.e., the right to sue) for possession and access to the children. Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding their children, however. Generally, a court in a Texas custody case cannot interfere with a fit parent’s right to make decisions for their child by awarding access or possession to a non-parent over the fit parent’s objection, unless the nonparent overcomes the presumption that the fit parent is acting in the child’s best interest. In a recent case, a father challenged a court order naming the grandmother possessory conservator.

Prior Order Provides for Parental Rights and Custody

According to the appeals court’s opinions, the parents were joint managing conservators, with the mother having the exclusive right to determine the primary residence. The mother later became ill and the grandmother, who lived with her, cared for the children. When the mother died in January 2021, the grandmother refused to return the children to the father. He obtained a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The grandmother intervened and asked to be appointed sole managing conservator with possession or access to the children. The father argued she grandmother did not meet the requirements for grandparent access under Tex. Fam. Code § 153.432 or managing conservatorship pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 102.004.

Texas Court Can Impose Geographic Restriction After Jury Gives Parent Custody

Published on: September 19, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-483613578 A geographic restriction in a Texas custody order helps ensure the parent without physical custody has access to the child, but it can also impose severe limitations on the mobility of the parent with physical custody of the child. In a recent case, a mother challenged the imposition of a geographic restriction on the child’s primary residence by the trial court after a jury found she should be the child’s sole managing conservator.

Modification Suit Filed After Prior Order

The final divorce decree named the parents joint managing conservators and gave the mother the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within a specific county. The father later petitioned for modification, seeking the right to designate the child’s primary residence. The mother asked the court to remove the father as a joint managing conservator and name her sole managing conservator with the exclusive rights set forth in Tex. Fam. Code § 153.132, including the right to designate the primary residence. She also asked for an additional $100 per month in child support.

The jury found the mother should be appointed the sole managing conservator. No other issues were presented to the jury. The judge’s letter ruling indicated she wanted to place a geographical restriction on the mother’s right to designate the child’s primary residence, but was uncertain of the court’s authority to do so under the circumstances. The letter ruling stated the court imposed the geographic restriction if both parties’ counsel agreed it could, but not if counsel agreed it could not. If counsel disagreed as to whether the court could impose the restriction, the court requested they provide authorities on the issue. The trial court denied the modification of the child-support obligation.

Texas Court Denies Child-Support Modification upon Finding of Underemployment

Published on: September 1, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-1132277483 In determining the Texas child-support obligation of a parent, the court may consider whether that parent is intentionally unemployed or underemployed. If the court finds the parent is intentionally unemployed or underemployed, it may apply the support guidelines to that parent’s earning potential, rather than to their actual earnings. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.066. The court does not have to find the parent was attempting to avoid child support to find intentional unemployment or underemployment.

In a recent case, a father challenged the denial of his request for modification of his child-support obligation following a change in jobs that resulted in a significant salary reduction. When the parties divorced in 2015, the trial court appointed the parents joint managing conservators and gave the mother the exclusive right to determine the children’s primary residence. The father was ordered to pay $1,600 in monthly child support and to maintain insurance for the children.

Mother and Father File Competing Modification Suits

The mother petitioned to modify the medical-support provision to give her the obligation to maintain medical insurance in 2019. The father counter-petitioned to reduce his monthly child support based on a change in his salary.