There is a strong presumption in Texas family law that it is in the child’s best interest for a parent to be awarded custody over a non-parent. In a recent case, a father appealed a judgment naming him joint managing conservator with the child’s maternal grandmother. A central issue in the case was the father’s argument that he should have been appointed the child’s sole managing conservator based upon the parental presumption.
In Texas custody cases, a court may only issue an order denying possession of a child or imposing restrictions or limitations on a parent’s right to possession to the extent necessary to protect the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.193. Thus, a court may only order that a parent’s visitation with a child be supervised if doing so is in the child’s best interest.
A father recently challenged a court’s denial of his request for supervised visitation and drug testing of the mother.
Texas family law includes a presumption that parents should be appointed joint managing conservators. The law does not require, however, that the parents be given equal possession just because they are joint managing conservators. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.135. There is a rebuttable presumption that the standard possession order is in the child’s best interest, but that presumption only applies to children who are at least three years old. For younger children, the court must consider “all relevant factors.” The statute specifically requires the court consider who provided care before and during the proceedings, how separation from either party may affect the child, the availability and willingness of the parties to care for the child, and the child’s needs, along with other specified factors. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.254.
A father recently challenged the possession schedule and decision-making authority granted to the mother, arguing in part that the court should have awarded equal time or the standard possession schedule.
Texas family law has a strong presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to give custody to a parent. Generally, the court must appoint sole managing conservatorship to the parent instead of a non-parent unless it finds doing so would not be in the child’s best interest due to significant impairment of the child’s emotional development or physical health. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131(a). What if the parent lives in another country? A Texas appeals court recently considered this issue.
A court may order one joint managing conservator to pay Texas child support to another joint managing conservator. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.138. The child’s best interest is the primary consideration in determining child support. There may, therefore, be occasions where a court orders the parent with primary physical custody to nonetheless pay child support to the other parent, when they are both joint managing conservators. A mother recently challenged an order to pay child support when she had been awarded the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence.
A parent may want to change a child’s name for a number of reasons. Texas family law allows a court to order the change of a child’s name if doing so is in the child’s best interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 45.004(a). Generally, courts should only order a child’s name change if it is needed for the child’s “substantial welfare.” A mother recently appealed a court’s denial of her petition to change her children’s names from their father’s surname to her maiden name.
The parents divorced in 2011. After allegations the father had abused the son in 2015, the mother had sole possession of both of the minor children. The mother petitioned in 2019 to change the children’s last name to her maiden name. The children agreed to the change, but the father opposed it. He argued they had his name since they were born and that they could change their names on their own when they are adults.
The mother testified she wanted to change the children’s names because she had grown up with her maiden name. She said the children wanted to identify with her family’s name “to feel the closeness of [that] family.” They had been using her name and wanted to legally change their names. She testified that her maiden name is well respected in the area and having that name would be important when the children became involved with the family businesses.
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a ruling that is sure to have a major impact on future non-parent custody cases in the state of Texas. In the case of In re C.J.C., the Supreme Court of Texas found that the presumption that it is in the best interest of a child to award possession to a fit parent versus a non-parent extends to modification cases. This decision is certain to be seen as a major win for parents, as the Court reinforced the long-held notion that in most cases, a parent having custody of their child is best for the child.
The case involved grandparents of the child and the boyfriend of the child’s deceased mother attempting to modify the possession of the child and gain at least some court-ordered possession from the child’s father. The trial court found that the boyfriend was entitled to some possession and even some rights, such as the right to consent to emergency medical decisions. The child’s father appealed this decision. Continue Reading ›
Under Texas family law, a court may order a child’s name be changed if doing so is in the child’s best interest. Neither parent is specifically granted the right to name the child under Texas law, but generally a child’s name will not be changed unless the party seeking the change shows a good reason for it. In a recent case, a mother challenged a court’s order to change the child’s name to include the father’s last name.
The parties appeared to have a good co-parenting relationship. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the child lived with the mother, but the father had always been a part of his life and assisted financially with his living expenses. The father’s family was also significantly involved in the child’s life, helping the mother financially and with child care.
The mother had been adopted as a young child. She grew up in Virginia and moved to Texas when she was 18. She did not have any family other than her son in Texas. Due to the distance, the child did not have the same amount of interaction with his mother’s family that he had with his father’s family.
The Texas Family Code limits a trial court’s ability to issue temporary orders during a pending suit to modify the parent-child relationship. The court cannot issue a temporary order designating or changing the designation of the person with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence unless it is in the child’s best interest and the current circumstances would significantly impair his or her physical health or emotional development, the designated person has voluntarily given up primary care and custody, or the child is at least 12 years old and has identified the person he or she prefers to have the right to designate the primary residence. The court is also prohibited from creating, changing, or eliminating a geographic limitation on the child’s primary residence unless those same conditions are met.
A father recently challenged a temporary court order requiring his children be enrolled in a school district where neither parent lived.
The divorce decree named the parents joint managing conservators of their three children, but granted the father the exclusive right to designate their primary residence with no geographic restriction. Each parent had the independent right to make decisions about the children’s education.