Brandon Joseph, Author at Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Legislative Update

Published on: August 16, 2023 | by Brandon Joseph

During its most recent session, Texas lawmakers adopted and passed several amendments and updates to the Texas Family Code, which were then formally signed into law by the Governor.

These revisions and additions to the Texas Family Code impact numerous areas of family law, including but not limited to: (1) suits for the dissolution of marriage; (2) suits affecting the parent-child relationship; (3) protective orders; and (4) discovery in cases filed under the Texas Family Code.

Ranging from modifications to elements necessary to prove a claim, clarifications to existing codified law, and the removal of automatically triggered disclosure requirements, family law practitioners throughout the State of Texas should familiarize themselves with these changes and how such changes impact their practice.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses and Remands Custody Case for Child Interview

Published on: August 14, 2023 | by Brandon Joseph

In some Texas custody disputes, a parent may want the court to hear an older child’s preferences regarding conservatorship or possession. Upon application of a party in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the court is required to interview a child 12 or older in chambers to determine their wishes regarding conservatorship or the exclusive right to determine their primary residence, in a nonjury trial or hearing. If the child is under 12, the court may interview them, but is not required to do so. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.009(a). A mother recently appealed a judgment awarding the father the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence after the court declined her request for an interview.

Trial

According to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas, the father petitioned for divorce in 2017. He requested the court interview the children. The mother, however, demanded a jury trial and paid the associated fee. Mother subsequently withdrew the jury demand. Her attorney stated she did so to benefit from the interview provision in Section 153.009(a), and the mother ultimately testified similarly.

The mother’s attorney requested an in-chambers interview with the oldest child pursuant to Section 153.009(a) by letter emailed to the court coordinator. The attorney also repeatedly called the coordinator to try to get the interview scheduled. The attorney also requested the interview again at trial, explaining the mother had withdrawn her demand for a jury trial to allow for the interview. The court, however, denied the request because the mother had not filed a written motion. The oldest child was 13 at the time of the trial.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Children’s Name Change

Published on: June 27, 2023 | by Brandon Joseph

A trial court generally cannot grant relief that was not requested by the parties in a Texas family law matter. Relief must generally conform to the pleadings, though in some cases an issue may be tried by consent of the parties. A mother recently challenged a trial court’s order changing the children’s name to something different from what she had requested when the father had not participated in the proceedings.

Mother Petitions for Name Change

In January 2022, the trial court adjudicated parentage and named the mother sole managing conservator of the children, who were born in 2019 and 2020. The children’s last names were structured as “[father’s last name] [mother’s last name].” The mother then petitioned to remove the father’s last name from the children’s last names, alleging he had not been in their lives or supported them and that the change was in the children’s best interest.

The trial court held two hearings, but the father failed to answer or participate. The mother testified that she wanted to change the children’s name to avoid inconvenience and confusion. She said that she had extended family in the area who shared her last name and that she did not plan to change her name. She also testified the change was in the best interest of the children and that she had not requested it to try to alienate the father. The birth certificates showing the children’s names were admitted as evidence.

Supreme Court of Texas Discovery Rules

Published on: March 8, 2021 | by Brandon Joseph

iStock-1046559368-300x225
On December 23, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court finalized its amendments to the discovery rules set forth in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The changes to the discovery rules will undoubtedly impact family law cases filed on or after January 1, 2021.

Of the amendments, the mandate that certain pretrial, expert, and initial disclosures be made under Rules 194 and 195, will require the compilation and exchange of documents and information early in the litigation phase and without the necessity of a formal request from the opposing party. While this early exchange of information may lead to resolution and settlement of issues and claims, failure to respond in accordance with the Rules may result in exclusion of evidence as set forth in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6.

In order to preserve your claims and ability to present evidence, it is imperative that you comply with the amendments to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. For convenience, please find the amended discovery rules below.

Death Penalty Sanctions in a Texas Divorce

Published on: August 5, 2017 | by Brandon Joseph

In a recent Texas divorce case, the lower court imposed so-called “death penalty sanctions” against the wife for litigation misconduct. The wife sued for divorce in 2016, and the husband counter-petitioned in the following month. In the counter-petition, the husband pled claims of misapplication of community property, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and forgery.

The wife didn’t cooperate with written or oral discovery, causing the husband to ask for sanctions. He also filed a motion to compel discovery, claiming she hadn’t responded to multiple requests for written discovery and had refused to answer questions at her deposition. The lower court set a hearing but, without holding the hearing, said it would consider the motion for sanctions. It ordered the wife to respond to the husband’s discovery requests. The husband and wife agreed to an order that addressed the motions for sanctions. It found the wife had again failed to answer the written discovery and ordered her to answer. She and her husband signed the agreed order.

Nonetheless, the wife didn’t answer the discovery requests, and he again moved for sanctions. He said she hadn’t provided answers to interrogatories. He claimed that she’d produced some documents, but they weren’t identified or categorized as responses to particular requests. He also claimed she hadn’t given an accounting she’d been ordered to give and hadn’t answered the deposition questions she’d previously refused to answer. He asked for severe sanctions, including a default judgment against her.

Division of Property in Texas

Published on: April 11, 2016 | by Brandon Joseph

Alex Graves, award-winning director of “The West Wing” recently finalized his divorce from his wife of 19 years. Pursuant to the final order, the spouses’ property was divided evenly. Does the State of Texas mandate a fifty-fifty division of property upon divorce? The short answer is “no.” Continue Reading ›

Title IV Family Violence Protective Orders

Published on: December 23, 2015 | by Brandon Joseph

The Texas legislature has taken a strong stance against family violence. Title IV of the Texas Family Code codifies the injunctive remedy of Family Violence Protective Orders. In Texas, an Applicant for a Title IV Protective Order must first satisfy the venue requirements and have a qualifying relationship with the Respondent. In limited situations, an Applicant may be afforded the opportunity to apply for a Title IV Protective Order on behalf of another. Continue Reading ›

Same-Sex Couples and Common Law Marriage

Published on: October 8, 2015 | by Brandon Joseph

The legalization of same-sex marriage may only be a few months old, but Texas’ informal marriage laws may provide for marriage recognition dating back decades. On June 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriage in every state of the Union. Since the rendering of the Court’s ruling, counties across the state of Texas have issued thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Upon receipt of a marriage license, these couples become eligible to enter into formal marriage. However, Texas also recognizes informal marriage, frequently referred to as common law marriage. Texas allows parties to an informal marriage to hold, as their legal wedding date, the earliest date at which all statutory requirements of an informal marriage were satisfied. What does this mean for same-sex couples who satisfied the statutory requirements before the legalization of same-sex marriage in Texas?

Under the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage may be proved by evidence that: (1) a declaration of marriage has been signed; or (2) by showing that the parties agreed to be married and after the agreement they cohabited together, in Texas, as a married couple, and represented themselves to others, in Texas, to be married. (see Texas Family Code 2.401). Upon satisfaction of the second prong, the couple may file a declaration of marriage and list, as their date of marriage, the earliest date at which all requirements were concurrently satisfied. Of course, same-sex couples are now afforded the ability to enter into informal marriage. The question is, however, will same-sex couples who satisfied all requirements of the law be allowed to declare their marriages to a date prior to June 16, 2015?

Initially, it was believed that state officials would hold that same-sex common law marriages could not be dated before June 26, 2015, as same-sex marriages were void ab initio under the law. However, with respect to a recent declaration of marriage filed by a same-sex couple in Tarrant County, Texas, the Texas Department of State Health Services stated that “Applicants, regardless of gender, may apply for an informal marriage license using any date applicable to their relationship.” Accordingly, this Tarrant County couple was allowed to date their informal marriage to 1992.