Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Child Support Guidelines and Child Support Modification

Published on: July 8, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-483611874 The trial court has some discretion in determining the modified amount of child support when it has determined that a Texas child support order should be modified. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.125 provides a schedule of percentages that are presumptively applied when the parent’s net monthly resources do not exceed a specified amount. The trial court, however, may consider the listed factors or “any other reason” to determine the application of those amounts is not in the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.123. There must be evidence of the child’s “proven needs” in the record for the court to deviate upwards from the guidelines. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.126.

A father recently challenged a modification to his child support obligation, arguing the trial court improperly deviated from the presumptive amount. According to the appeals court’s opinion, the parties’ 2017 divorce decree obligated the father to pay $1,710 in child support each month for one child (i.e., max child support at the time). In 2018, he petitioned to modify the amount of child support, claiming his income had decreased.

Father Seeks Reduction in Child Support

The father lived in California and worked as a vice president, selling software testing. His base salary was $80,000, but he also earned commissions and a significant bonus (up to 50% of his base salary). The mother had been a homemaker, but had just begun providing catering services at the time of the hearing. She had earned approximately $1,400 for the one event she had catered at the time of trial.

Texas Appeals Court Affirms Lump Sum Disability Payment Credited to Future Child Support

Published on: July 5, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-531351317 Texas family law considers Social Security disability benefits to be a substitute for the parent’s earnings. Pursuant to Tex. Fam. Code § 157.009, when a child receives a lump-sum payment due to the parent’s disability, the parent is entitled to a credit applied to any arrearage and interest. Additionally, when a trial court applies the child support guidelines to a parent who receives disability benefits, the court must determine how much child support would be ordered under the guidelines then subtract the value of any benefits paid to the child as a result of the parent’s disability. Tex. Fam. Code § 154.132.

The Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) recently appealed a trial court order applying a lump sum disability payment as a credit to future child support. The trial court signed the parents’ divorce decree in 2016. The court ordered the father to pay $603.25 in monthly child support. He filed a petition for modification in 2018, asking the court to modify his child support obligations. The OAG intervened, stating he owed back child support and asking the court to enter judgment for the arrearages and accrued interest.

Father Argues He is Entitled to Future Credit for Disability Payment

The OAG stated in its brief that the father had started receiving Social Security Disability benefits and the children had received a lump sum benefit payment. The OAG contended that amount could only be used as a credit against the father’s arrearage and not for future child support. The father, however, asked the court to give him a credit against his future obligation.

Genetic Testing of Presumed Father in Texas Paternity Case

Published on: June 24, 2021 | by McClure Law Group

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.

Texas Appeals Court Finds Wife Did Not Commit Fraud by Nondisclosure

Published on: June 22, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

divorce-property-fraud In some cases, a party to a Texas divorce may agree to a settlement that seemingly has less-than-favorable terms. For example, a party may agree to their spouse receiving property with a higher monetary value to ensure they receive property that has personal value to them. In a recent case, a husband alleged the wife committed “fraud by nondisclosure” by entering into a Mediated Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) without disclosing that the FBI had possession of certain items that were to be awarded to him under that MSA.

Husband is Awarded Certain Items He Believes are in Wife’s Possession

The parties agreed to the MSA, which gave the wife the personal property in her possession with certain exceptions, including a laptop and cell phone. These items were explicitly given to the husband in the MSA. When the husband learned that the wife did not actually have possession of these items, he moved to set aside the MSA. The husband testified that the wife having those items was “a key factor” in his agreement to the MSA and the wife receiving so much joint property and custody of their child. He said the contents on those devices could have a negative effect on his military career. He had initially believed they were in the wife’s possession, because he had left them at the home and she had pictures and videos from the devices. He had previously petitioned for those items to be returned to him, and the wife had subsequently asked to keep all of the possessions in the marital home.

Husband Moves to Set Aside MSA – But is Denied

After he signed the MSA, the husband learned the FBI had both devices. He moved to set aside the MSA in May, arguing the wife committed fraud when she failed to disclose that she did not have the devices. The trial court denied the motion, and the husband appealed.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Finding of Informal Marriage

Published on: June 20, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-1270267953 Texas is one of the few states that still recognizes “informal marriage,” also sometimes known as “common law marriage.” A party who petitions for divorce from an informal marriage often must prove the existence of the informal marriage in the first place. To prove there was an informal marriage, the party must show the couple had an agreement to be married, subsequently lived as spouses together in Texas, and represented themselves as married. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.401. Furthermore, all of these elements must occur at the same time. Evidence of an informal marriage may include evidence the parties addressed each other as spouses, conducted themselves as married people, or lived together. Evidence that the parties lived together and represented themselves as married is not alone sufficient to establish the existence of an agreement to be married.

In a recent case, an alleged husband challenged the court’s finding of the existence of an informal marriage. The parties moved to Texas from Colorado with the alleged wife’s two children in 1985. They separated in early 2012. In 2015, the alleged wife filed a trespass to try title suit, claiming joint ownership in real property due to an informal marriage. That lawsuit was consolidated with her subsequent divorce action.

The trial court ultimately found the parties had been in an informal marriage. The court granted a divorce and divided their property. The husband appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of an informal marriage.

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

Published on: June 2, 2021 | by McClure Law Group

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.

Military Disability Cannot Be Divided by Texas Divorce Court

Published on: May 31, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

iStock-543681178 Under federal law, a court may not treat military disability benefits as community property for purposes of property distribution in a Texas divorce case. A husband recently challenged the property distribution in his divorce decree, arguing the court had improperly divided a portion of his military disability benefits.

Trial Court Divides Husband’s Military Retirement Benefits

The wife petitioned for divorce and sought a majority of the community assets. The court granted the divorce on grounds of insupportability and adultery. The decree gave the wife 55% of the husband’s disposable military retired pay, attorney’s fees, and conditional appellate attorney’s fees. The husband appealed.

The husband contended the 55% of his disposable military retired pay awarded to the wife erroneously included disability payments. The wife, however, argued the award did not include disability benefits and the decree had specifically awarded him his “VA Disability and Social Security Disability benefits” as separate property.

Trial or Contested Hearing Required to Determine Disputed Texas Property Division

Published on: May 24, 2021 | by Francesca Blackard

iStock-483613578 In a Texas divorce, a jury may decide issues regarding the characterization and valuation of property, but the judge is responsible for actually dividing the community property in a just and right manner. The court may consider a number of factors, including fault, education, ages and physical conditions, financial conditions, and the amount of separate property. Generally, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing or trial, unless the parties agree on the property division.

Wife Argues Trial Court Did Not Hear Property Issues

In a recent case, a wife appealed a property division, arguing the court failed to hold a hearing on the property division.

The parties married in 2003 and the husband filed for divorce in 2017. The jury did not hear the property division issues, which were reserved for the trial court. The court stated that it would try those issues during the jury deliberations if there was time or would otherwise schedule a date after the verdict on the issues related to the children.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Custody Modification Following Alleged Assault and Abuse

Published on: May 23, 2021 | by McClure Law Group

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.

Successor Judge Had Authority to Reform Judgment in Texas Parental Adjudication Case

Published on: May 9, 2021 | by Kelly McClure

BSgavelx1200-768x432-1 The trial court in a Texas family law case has only a limited ability to change its judgment once its plenary power expires. Generally, plenary power lasts for thirty days from the date the final judgment is signed, but it may be extended if the court overrules certain motions or modifies the judgment while it still has plenary power.

In a recent case, a mother challenged the court’s authority to reform the judgment. According to the appeals court’s opinion, she had petitioned for the adjudication of the parentage of her child. Both the mother and the alleged father sought an order adjudicating him to be the child’s father.

The parties reached a partial agreement and went to trial on the remaining issues.