Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Court Order Granting Grandparents Custody

Published on: May 7, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

Under Texas family law, there is a presumption that one or both parents should be named managing conservator of a child in an original suit for custody. If, however, the child’s health or emotional well-being would be significantly impaired, the court may appoint a non-parent if doing so is in the child’s best interest. This presumption can make it difficult for non-parents to gain custody. A mother recently challenged an order giving her child’s paternal grandparents custody.

She appealed the order that appointed her and the child’s paternal grandparents as joint managing conservators, with the grandparents having the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. The trial court had issued that order following a petition to modify a 2013 order that granted the grandparents possession and access to the child.

The trial court titled its order “Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child relationship.” The court found the child had primarily lived with the grandparents, and they had “had actual care, control, and possession of the child with the voluntary consent of [the mother].” The court also found the mother had been arrested for Battery and Cruelty to a Child in an incident involving her teenage daughter. The court found the mother had a history of drug use and instability. The trial court concluded the mother had relinquished care, control and possession of the child to the grandparents, that appointing her as sole managing conservator or giving her the right to determine the child’s primary residence would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development, and that the modification was in the child’s best interest.

Possession Schedules While on the Front Line of COVID-19

Published on: May 5, 2020 | by Kelly McClure

As COVID-19 began to take hold in the United States, Texas and other states took action to ensure that child possession schedules remained in effect and were followed according to court orders. These actions were effective, and as COVID-19 continues to persist in society, parents have adapted to working within court-ordered possession schedules. Now, however, new issues have surfaced regarding the safety and protection of children who are subject to the court-ordered possession schedules. Continue Reading ›

Texas Court Has Discretion in Determining Duration of Spousal Maintenance

Published on: April 27, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

In a Texas divorce, if one spouse does not have sufficient property to provide for his or her minimum reasonable needs and is not able to earn enough income to provide for those needs and certain other circumstances are met, the court may order spousal maintenance. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051. The duration of spousal maintenance is generally based on the length of the marriage, with 10 years being the greatest duration, for marriages longer than 30 years. However, in some circumstances, the court may order maintenance for a longer duration. When the spouse is unable to provide for their needs due to disability, the court may order maintenance for as long as they meet the eligibility criteria. Tex. Fam. Code § 8.051.

A wife recently challenged her divorce decree, in part because of the duration of the maintenance award. After the husband filed for divorce, the wife requested temporary spousal support and spousal maintenance after the divorce. The husband was ultimately ordered to pay $400 per month temporary support, starting November 15, 2015. The wife moved to enforce the order after the husband failed to start paying on time, and he began paying the following April.

At a hearing in October 2018, the wife testified she was disabled and it affected her ability to get employment. She testified regarding her retirement, her disability benefits, and her monthly expenses. She said she would not be able to pay for her expenses without spousal support.

Securing Justice for Clients in the Virtual World

Published on: April 21, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

Even when society seems like it has come to a halt, life does not and neither does the legal system. In this age of social distancing, self-quarantining, and virtual hangouts, Texas courts have been on the forefront of keeping the legal system accessible to everyone. This is especially true in the realm of family law where courts have employed virtual hearings and trials Continue Reading ›

Biological Father Ordered to Pay Child Support to Mother’s Ex-Husband in Texas Custody Case

Published on: April 20, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

A Texas custody case can become complicated when a person learns he is the biological father of a child years after the child’s birth. Although a potential father of a child with a presumed father generally must file for adjudication of paternity prior to the child’s fourth birthday, in some cases, a delay may be excused. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.607. In a suit adjudicating parentage, the court may order retroactive child support based on the child support guidelines if the parent has not been previously ordered to pay child support and was not party to a suit where support was ordered. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 154.009.

In a recent case, a biological father challenged an order requiring him to pay retroactive child support and granting custody to the mother’s ex-husband. The mother was not sure who the father was, but married during her pregnancy. The mother and her husband also had a child together. The husband was the presumptive father and was adjudicated the father of both children when he and the mother divorced. The husband was named managing conservator with the right to establish the primary residence for both children.

The mother had told the biological father about the pregnancy when she realized she may be pregnant, and he acknowledged he was aware he could be the father from that time. He went to the hospital the day the child was born. He said the mother told him he was not the father and he did not pursue paternity at that time. The mother told him he may be the father when the child was four years old and a paternity test confirmed that he was the probable father.

Spousal Maintenance in Texas Divorce Cases

Published on: April 13, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

In a Texas divorce, a spouse who cannot support herself or himself because of an incapacitating disability and does not have sufficient property to meet their needs may be eligible for spousal maintenance. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.051. Spousal support is generally limited in time, but a court may order spousal maintenance indefinitely to a spouse who is disabled. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.054. There are statutory limits to the amount of spousal maintenance a court can award. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 8.055.

A husband recently challenged an award of spousal maintenance to the wife. He filed for divorce after the couple had been married for more than 18 years. The wife filed a counterpetition and sought spousal maintenance.

At trial, the wife testified she owned as separate property a house she received in a previous divorce. She expected to receive $96,000 in proceeds from its sale to put toward buying a new home. She testified she would “barely have enough to pay for [the new] house.”

Ongoing Obligation Under I-864 Affidavit of Support after Texas Divorce

Published on: April 6, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

In many cases, when a person seeks to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the United States, also known as a green card, they must have a sponsor who agrees to support them. If the person is moving to the United States as a spouse of or to marry a lawful permanent resident or a U.S. citizen, the spouse often serves as the sponsor. The sponsor must sign a Form I-864 Affidavit of Support, which is a legally enforceable contract in which the sponsor agrees to use their financial resources to support the person who intends to immigrate. After the person becomes a lawful permanent resident, the sponsor’s support obligation generally continues until one of the specified conditions is met, including the immigrant becoming a US citizen or earning 40 work quarters toward Social Security. Divorce is not one of the conditions that relieves the sponsor of his or her support obligation. Therefore, the support obligation may become an issue in a Texas divorce involving an immigrant who has not become a US citizen.

The support obligation was at issue in a recent case. The wife had moved to the United States from Mexico to be with the husband in 2014. They married in June 2016. The husband signed an I-864 affidavit of support in August 2016, agreeing to provide the wife with any support needed to keep her income level at at least 125% of the federal poverty level. The wife later became a lawful permanent resident.

The husband filed for divorce in July 2017. In her counterpetition, the wife asked the court to order the husband “to support her under his federal contractual obligation” based on the form I-864. The trial court heard evidence and granted the divorce, but took the issue of the husband’s obligation pursuant to the I-864 affidavit under advisement to review the case law submitted by the parties. The court held multiple hearings on the issue.

Can I Still Get Divorced Under Quarantine?

Published on: April 2, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

The short answer is “yes.” The Courts are still open for business and so are most family law firms, albeit remotely- to protect your health and safety.

Below are answers to the most recent frequently asked questions:

How do I conduct a consult if my spouse is in the next room?

Texas Divorce Court May Base Property Valuation on the Evidence Before It

Published on: April 1, 2020 | by Kelly McClure

Texas family law requires a just and right division of community property by a divorce court. The court must, however, have the relevant information before it to identify and appraise the assets. A party who refuses to disclose assets or information about their value generally may not complain about the court’s valuation of those assets. A former husband recently challenged the court’s division of property.

Prior to the marriage in 1994, the parties signed an “Agreement in Contemplation of Marriage.” The wife filed for divorce in 2005, and the husband counter-sued. The divorce decree was issued in July 2009.

Issues related to the case had already been before the appeals court five times. The appeals court had previously remanded certain issues related to the property division back to the trial court. The husband appealed the “Judgment on New Trial for Property Division.” He argued the trial court erred by not enforcing the prenuptial agreement regarding a bank account and a legal settlement. He argued the agreement required property held in the name of either party to be presumed to be that party’s separate property.

Texas Divorce Court May Award Damages to Wife Where Husband Improperly Withdrew Retirement Funds During Divorce

Published on: March 30, 2020 | by McClure Law Group

Under Texas family law, if a party in a divorce case fails to comply with the divorce decree and delivery of the awarded property would no longer be an adequate remedy, the court may render a money judgment for the damages. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 9.010. A husband recently challenged an enforcement order awarding the wife damages after the husband withdrew and spent all the funds from two retirement accounts while the divorce was pending.

The inventories submitted by the husband in the divorce proceedings included two retirement accounts in his name, but did not specify an amount. Both parties were ordered to preserve assets until the divorce was concluded, but the husband closed the accounts and transferred the funds to his personal account. The trial court awarded 50% of each account to the wife in the final divorce decree.

The wife sued to enforce the property division in the divorce decree, also alleging fraud on the community. The husband testified he had withdrawn about $75,000 from the accounts and admitted he had done so without notifying the wife or the court. He testified he spent the funds on living expenses because he was unemployed.