Texas appellate courts frequently underscore the critical role of financial transparency and credible evidence in divorce proceedings, particularly when child support and property division are contested. In a January 2026 decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld a Rockwall County trial court’s divorce judgment, emphasizing that digital financial records can outweigh a party’s testimony in determining income and the allocation of community property. Tex. Fam. Code § 3.003.

Factual Background of the Case

The underlying dispute involved a husband and wife regarding child support and the division of marital assets. The husband, unemployed since March 2023, claimed a net monthly income insufficient to justify the trial court’s $1,840 monthly child support award. The wife presented Cash App statements showing over $159,000 in deposits over 14 months.

Texas courts consistently prioritize the “best interest” of the child when adjudicating conservatorship and possession disputes. Under Texas Family Code § 153.002, trial courts evaluate conservatorship arrangements to promote the child’s physical, emotional, and educational welfare. The 2025 appellate decision in In the Interest of A.L.K. provides a contemporary example of how courts implement this principle when parental conflict affects decision-making. In re A.L.K., 08-23-00347-CV, Tex. App.—El Paso 2025.

Factual Background

A.L.K.’s parents, Jun and Jasmine, were divorced and initially appointed as joint managing conservators with shared decision-making responsibilities. Jasmine held primary authority over education and residence under the original 2020 decree. By 2022, Jun petitioned to modify the parent-child relationship, citing material and substantial changes, including ongoing co-parenting difficulties and inconsistent communication that could impact A.L.K.’s stability. Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. The petition sought a reallocation of educational decision-making authority while maintaining a structured possession schedule.

Texas family law has long recognized that individuals other than biological parents sometimes serve as primary caregivers for a child. In limited circumstances, those individuals could seek court intervention by filing a Suit Affecting the Parent–Child Relationship (SAPCR). However, recent statutory reforms significantly narrow that pathway, particularly for stepparents.

In 2025, the Texas Legislature enacted House Bill 2350, which amends the standing provisions of the Texas Family Code and raises the threshold for non-parent caregivers seeking access to be heard in Texas courts. The change appears technical, but it may dramatically affect stepparent custody claims in blended families.

Standing in a Suit Affecting the Parent–Child Relationship

In Texas, court-ordered possession and access provisions are not advisory. They are binding orders, and repeated violations can carry significant legal consequences. A recent legislative change strengthens those consequences. House Bill 3181 creates a statutory “three strikes” framework that directly links repeated contempt findings for denying visitation to the potential loss of primary custody.

Enforcement of Possession and Access Orders

Texas courts possess broad authority to enforce possession and access provisions contained in divorce decrees and orders affecting the parent-child relationship. When a parent refuses to comply with an existing visitation order, the other parent should file a motion for enforcement, and the trial court may impose contempt sanctions, including fines, jail time, and attorney’s fees. Tex. Fam. Code § 157.001; Tex. Fam. Code § 157.166.

The default schedule for standard possession in Texas has changed. Texas custody law generally uses the term “possession and access” rather than visitation. The Texas Family Code establishes standard possession schedules designed to promote frequent contact between children and both parents. Recent legislative changes have altered how those Texas visitation schedules operate in many cases.

The Standard Possession Order Framework

Texas courts frequently rely on the Standard Possession Order (SPO) when determining possession schedules in divorce and custody proceedings. Historically, the traditional SPO provided that the non-custodial parent exercised possession on the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month, along with certain holiday periods. Tex. Fam. Code §153.312

The Texas Supreme Court has reversed the outcome in a lawsuit filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services seeking termination of a mother’s parental rights. The case proceeded to trial following the child’s removal from the mother’s care based on allegations involving substance abuse and domestic violence towards another child in the home. By the time the case reached trial, however, the Department’s position had changed.

During the trial, the Department’s representative testified twice that the Department was not seeking termination and instead requested conservatorship relief that would appoint the father as sole managing conservator while leaving the mother as a parent non-conservator.

Despite that testimony, the trial court entered a final order terminating the mother’s parental rights. The court of appeals affirmed the termination, concluding that the trial court was not bound by the Department’s statements at trial.

Even after a divorce decree becomes final, disputes may arise regarding compliance with the decree’s property provisions. In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court examined whether a trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction under Chapter 9 of the Texas Family Code when enforcing a divorce decree involving community property. Morrison v. Morrison, No. 24-0053 (Tex. Jan. 30, 2026)

The parties’ divorce decree awarded each spouse defined interests in the marital estate, including the marital residence. After the divorce, a dispute arose concerning one spouse’s alleged failure to maintain property awarded under the decree, which ultimately affected the value of the marital home. The aggrieved spouse sought relief in the trial court, alleging a violation of the decree and requesting enforcement.

Enforcement Versus Modification

Amy Schumer and Chris Fischer have announced on social media that they are divorcing after seven years of marriage. Let’s evaluate the dissolution of this marriage from the perspective of a family law attorney.

Even prior to the marriage, Schumer was an internationally famous comedian. Fischer is successful in his own field as a James Beard Foundation Award-winning chef, though Schumer’s net worth dwarfs Fischer’s at the time of writing. These facts matter when weighing the division of assets and debts, though a more penetrating accounting would be necessary.

It’s unclear whether the couple signed any pre- or post-marital agreements, as they never publicly commented on this facet of their relationship. This question piques our interest because pre-marital agreements, post-marital agreements, and pre-divorce planning simply carry higher stakes in terminations involving high-income spouses with significant assets (and possibly debts) to gain or lose.

Texas family law proceedings are generally open to the public, but parties in high-net-worth divorces frequently seek to shield sensitive financial and personal information from disclosure. A recent dispute surrounding the divorce records of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Senator Angela Paxton illustrates how courts approach requests to seal family law records when privacy concerns collide with public access.

The Dispute Over Sealed Divorce Records

At the start of their divorce proceedings, the Paxtons requested that their court records be sealed. Media organizations then sought to unseal records from their divorce proceedings on the basis of the public’s interest and governmental accountability.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

The Supreme Court of Texas has weighed in on the thorny question of when a default divorce judgment should be undone. In a recent case, a husband filed for divorce and sought to serve his wife with divorce papers. At the time, the wife was residing at her parents’ house with their child. After attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, the trial court authorized service by alternative means.

Despite the alternative service, the wife remained unaware that she had been served and did not file an answer. The trial court entered a default divorce decree, dividing the parties’ property.

Motion for New Trial

Contact Information