Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Independent Medical Decision-Making in Texas Custody Case Involving Child with Special Needs

Published on: February 25, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

In some Texas custody cases, parents may not agree on the best medical treatment for a child, especially a child with complex special needs. Courts sometimes give each parent the authority to make decisions regarding medical treatment during their periods of possession, but this can become complicated when the parents cannot agree on appropriate treatment. In a recent case, a father appealed a divorce decree that allowed each parent to make decisions regarding non-invasive treatment during their respective periods of possession.

Medical Decision Making

The parties’ divorce decree gave the mother the exclusive right to enroll their younger child in school and gave both parents the authority to consent to non-invasive medical treatment during their possession. The father appealed these two issues. Although the parties had two children, only the younger child was subject to the appeal.

The father argued that allowing each parent the right to decide whether to administer medication to the child during their possession was not in the child’s best interest.

Texas Court Erred in Denying Husband Jury Trial in Texas Divorce

Published on: February 21, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Generally, either party in a Texas divorce is entitled to demand a jury trial pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.703. A party seeking a jury trial must file a timely request. If the jury trial is available to a party as a matter of right, the court generally must grant the request unless doing so would injure the other party, disrupt the docket, or impede the court’s business. Halsell v. Dehoyos. A party in a civil case may waive the right to a jury trial in some circumstances, including agreeing to a bench trial, not timely requesting a jury trial or paying the fee, not appearing for trial, or not objecting to a bench trial. In re Marriage of Harrison. In a recent case, a husband appealed a divorce decree after the trial court held a bench trial following his timely request for a jury trial.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties married in 1986 and the wife petitioned for divorce in June 2020. They accused each other of fraud against the community and cruel treatment. Each sought a disproportionate share of the marital estate and requested reimbursement to the community estate.

The trial court appointed a receiver to take possession and control of the assets, including rental properties and a business.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms International Travel Restrictions for Child in Divorce Decree

Published on: February 14, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently reversed a trial court’s order imposing restrictions on international travel for a child whose mother had ties to Russia. In another recent case, however, the Third District Court of Appeals determined there was no error in a trial court’s imposition of travel restrictions for a child in a Texas divorce decree involving a mother with ties to India.

The parties’ son was nine years old when the final divorce decree was signed in 2023. The trial court ordered that the father maintain control and possession of the son’s passport until the child turns 13. The court also prohibited either party from traveling outside the U.S. with the child without the written agreement of the parties, with such agreement not being unreasonably withheld after the child turns 13.

The mother appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in restricting international travel without evidence of a risk of abduction.

Court Erred in Valuation of Large Pension in Texas Divorce

Published on: February 7, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Pensions and retirement accounts can complicate property division, especially in a high net worth Texas divorce. Retirement accounts often include both separate and community property. In a recent case, a former husband challenged the court’s valuation of the wife’s pension and the resulting property division.

According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties had been married nearly 30 years when the wife left and filed for divorce. The trial court found the husband had committed fraud on the community and awarded the wife a disproportionate division of the community estate.

The trial court found the assets of the reconstituted community estate were worth more than $1.8 million. The court also found the community had debts totaling more than $87,000. The court allocated a net estate of over $920,000, or 50.96% of the reconstituted community estate, to the wife and over $888,000, or 49.04%, to the husband.

Modification of Texas Child Custody and Child’s Preference

Published on: January 30, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

A trial court may modify a Texas conservatorship if modification is in the child’s best interest and the child is at least 12 years old and has told the court in chambers which parent they prefer to have the exclusive right to designate their primary residence. Tex . Fam . Code § 156.101(a)(2). In a recent case, a mother challenged a modification that named the father primary managing conservator, in part based on the fourteen-year-old daughter’s preference.

The 2017 final divorce decree appointed both parents joint managing conservators of their child. The mother had the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. The father was given an expanded standard visitation schedule and ordered to pay monthly child support.

Modification Proceeding

The father petitioned for modification in March 2021, requesting the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. He argued there had been a material and substantial change in circumstances. He alleged the child, who was now older than twelve years old, would express a preference on which parent should have the exclusive right to designate her primary residence.

Credible Risk of International Abduction in Texas Custody Cases

Published on: January 28, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

Sometimes when one parent has international ties, the other parent may have concerns about international abduction. There is a two-step statutory process to assess and mitigate risk of parental international abduction. The court must consider certain factors to determine if there is credible evidence of a potential risk. If the court finds there is a credible risk based on the factors, it must determine whether preventive measures should be taken.

In determining if there is a credible risk of international abduction, pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 153.502, the court must consider if there is evidence the parent took, withheld, or concealed a child in violation of someone else’s right of possession of or access to the child or threatened to do so. The court must also consider whether there is a lack of financial reasons for the parent to remain in the country. The court must also consider if the parent has recently engaged in planning activities that could facilitate taking the child from the U.S. Furthermore, the court must consider whether the parent has a history of domestic violence, criminal activity, or violating court orders. The court only has to find credible evidence supporting one of the factors.

In a recent case, a mother appealed a divorce decree that imposed prevention measures without a finding there was a credible risk of international abduction.

Texas Appeals Court Concludes Company Was Husband’s Separate Property

Published on: January 20, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

Division of a business in a Texas divorce can complicate a Texas divorce. As with other property, a business interest possessed during the marriage is presumed to be community property, but that presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that it is separate property. In a recent case, a husband appealed a property division involving a business interest and property owned by the business.

The trial court signed a final divorce decree in July 2023 and subsequently filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The property at issue was a 125-acre tract of land that the husband’s father previously owned. The trial court found the husband and his father each received 50 shares of company stock on the day the company was created in May 2008. A few days later, the husband’s father deeded the property to the company. The parties got married in June 2009.

Supreme Court of Texas Addresses Several Property Division Issues in Divorce Case

Published on: January 14, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The Supreme Court of Texas recently considered the property division in a Texas divorce case involving a complex estate, including an outstanding employee bonus, claims of separate property, and a retirement plan.

The parties got married in 2020 and were divorced in late 2019, with litigation regarding the property division continuing beyond the divorce.

Bonus

During the marriage, the husband worked for a large bank. He received an annual cash and stock bonus contingent on the bank’s and his own performance. The bonus was paid around February 15 each year.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award to Disabled Spouse

Published on: January 6, 2025 | by Kelly McClure

A court may award Texas spousal maintenance in a divorce case if the spouse seeking maintenance meets the statutory requirements. Generally, a spouse seeking maintenance must show that they lack sufficient property to provide for their own minimum reasonable needs and meet one of the other statutory conditions, including being unable to earn sufficient income due to an incapacitating disability. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.

“Minimum reasonable needs” is not defined in the Texas Family Code. The court therefore has the discretion to determine a party’s minimum reasonable needs based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts consider expenses including housing, clothing, and transportation. A former husband recently challenged the divorce decree that ordered him to pay spousal maintenance, arguing the wife had not proven her minimum reasonable needs.

The parties got married in Australia in 2009 and subsequently moved to Texas. Although the husband had a high-paying job, the wife only earned up to $10.50 per hour. She had significant mental and physical health issues that resulted in her unemployment in 2017.

Texas Appeals Court Rules on Separate Property Equity in Real Estate

Published on: January 6, 2025 | by Francesca Blackard

The property division in a high net worth Texas divorce may require one party to convey their interest in certain assets to the other spouse. In some cases, the parties may agree to liquidated damages in the event one party fails to cooperate and take the actions necessary to transfer their interests. In a recent case, a former spouse challenged a liquidated damages judgment against him.

The parties, S.K.F. and K.J.W., entered into a mediated settlement agreement, which included an agreement incident to divorce (“AID”). The agreed final divorce decree incorporated the AID and ordered the parties to do the things necessary to effectuate their agreement.

The AID confirmed as K.J.W.’s sole and separate property two condominiums in Puerto Vallarta. It awarded S.K.F. $550,000 for the condominiums, as his sole and separate property. The AID set out the payment schedule of: a check for $150,000 the date the MSA was signed, a check for $275,000 on the date the agreed final divorce decree was signed, and $125,000 paid to a law firm to be held in trust to ensure S.K.F. signed the deeds for the condos. It further provided if K.J.W. did not submit a formal written request to sign the deeds within 12 months after the divorce, he was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. half of the funds. If he did not make a formal request between the 12^th and 24^th month after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay S.K.F. the other half. If, however, S.K.F. signed the deeds as required to transfer his interest in the condos at any point during the 24 months after the divorce, K.J.W. was to instruct the firm to pay the entire balance of the funds to S.K.F. immediately. S.K.F. agreed that, upon receiving the written notice, he would have 90 days to arrange travel to Puerto Vallarta and sign the deeds on the date specified. K.J.W. agreed to pay for his reasonable travel expenses up to $1,300. S.K.F. further agreed that if he failed to sign the deeds within 24 months, K.J.W. would be awarded $600,000 in liquidated damages. The AID also included a general cooperation provision in which both parties agreed “to sign any and all additional documents necessary to effectuate the transfer of any asset, liability or interest in any entity or stock(s) to the other party.”