Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Successful Restricted Appeal Based on Lack of Evidence in Texas Divorce Proceeding

Published on: March 4, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

When a respondent fails to answer a Texas divorce petition, the petitioner may seek a default judgment granting the divorce. However, unlike in other types of cases, the unanswered allegations in a divorce petition are not deemed confessed. The petitioner must present evidence that supports the material allegations. If the trial court makes findings without sufficient supporting evidence, the non-participating party may have a right to appeal in certain circumstances, despite his or her failure to participate.

In a recent case, a husband filed a restricted appeal of a final divorce decree. The husband did not answer the divorce petition. Only the wife appeared and testified at the final hearing. The court entered a divorce decree that designated conservatorship over the children, addressed visitation, ordered the husband to pay child support, and divided the community estate. To succeed on a restricted appeal, the husband must show that he filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months of the judgment or order, he was party to the suit but did not participate in the hearing, and he did not file a timely post-judgment motion, request findings of fact and conclusion of law, or file notice of appeal within the required time frames. Furthermore, he must also show that there is an error apparent on the record’s face. The appeals court may therefore only consider evidence that was before the trial court.

The appeals court found the husband had met the requirements for the restricted appeal. He had timely filed his restricted appeal. He had not answered the petition or participated in the hearing. Additionally he had not filed a post-judgment motion, request for findings and conclusions, or appeal. Although a hearing had been held by the trial court, there was no evidence regarding the value of the marital estate, the income and debts of the parties, the children’s relationship with their parents, the children’s ages, or the children’s residences. The appeals court found the trial court had made factually based decisions without supporting evidence. The trial court made decisions relating to conservatorship and visitation. It ordered the husband to pay child support. The court also divided the community estate. The appeals court therefore found there was error apparent on the face of the record.

Texas Court Allows Mother to Change Children’s Last Name

Published on: February 25, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

Most Texas divorces address property division and custody and visitation issues, where there are children. In some cases, however, there are more unusual issues that must be addressed. In one recent case, a father challenged a court’s order allowing the mother to change the children’s last name from their father’s name to their mother’s maiden name.

The parents had two children together. The father is currently serving a life sentence without parole for an offense that occurred when his children were one and three years old. The mother petitioned for divorce. She requested to be appointed sole managing conservator, to change the children’s name, and to keep the father from having contact with the children.

The mother testified that the father’s family did not help after he was incarcerated. She thought contact with the father would threaten the kids’ emotional welfare. She testified that the father was a former gang member and she was afraid of him. She argued that keeping their father’s name “would be a source of anxiety, embarrassment, inconvenience or disruption” to the kids.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Finding of No Informal Marriage

Published on: February 18, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

Usually, in a Texas divorce case, both parties know and agree that they were married. In some cases, however, the parties may disagree as to whether there has been an informal marriage. An informal marriage can be proven by showing that the couple agreed to be married, subsequently lived together in Texas as spouses, and represented themselves as married. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 2.401. Texas courts have held that evidence that the parties held themselves out as married must be particularly convincing and be more than occasional references to each other as husband or wife.

A mother recently challenged a court’s finding that she had not been informally married to the father of her children. The couple had two children together, one who was six and the other who was 21. The mother petitioned for divorce, arguing that she and the father married on or about 1996. In his answer, the father stated there was no existing marriage.

At the hearing, the mother testified that she believed she and the father had agreed to be informally married when they moved in together. She said the father introduced her to his friends and family as his wife. She admitted, however, that she always filed her taxes as single. She also conceded that her name was not on the deed to the house, and it instead named the father and his father as the owners.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Geographic Residency Restriction in Custody Order

Published on: February 11, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

When one parent wants to move away with the child, the court hearing the Texas custody case must determine whether the move is in the child’s best interest. In making its determination, the court needs to consider the public policies set forth in the Texas Family Code. The court may also consider reasons for and against the move, opportunities the move will provide, accommodation of the child’s needs and talents, relationships with extended family, visitation and communication with the noncustodial parent, the non-custodial parent’s ability to relocate, and the child’s age. The court may also consider the same factors to be considered in determining the best interest of the child generally.

In a recent case, a mother challenged a geographic residency limitation the court placed on the child when she had planned to move. The mother filed for divorce and asked the court to appoint her as joint managing conservator and give her the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. The father asked that the parties be appointed joint managing conservators, but also sought the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence.

During the marriage, the couple had lived in Cass County. The child went to pre-K in Cass County, but both parents worked in Bowie County. After the separation, both parents moved to different areas of Bowie County and the child went to school where his mother lived.

Texas Court Grants Custody to Father Who Supports Kid’s Therapy

Published on: February 4, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

A change in Texas custody may be justified even when both parents love and care for the child. A custody modification is appropriate when there is a material and substantial change in circumstances of the parent or child and if the change is in the child’s best interest. Sometimes, changed circumstances put the non-custodial parent in a better position to provide for the child’s best interests, even if everyone agrees that the custodial parent loves and cares for the child.

A mother recently challenged a custody modification. The parents were originally named joint managing conservators under the divorce decree, and the mother was given the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence. The mother was also granted the exclusive right to receive child support. The father gained expanded possession rights through subsequent agreements, including a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). The court set forth the terms of the MSA in a 2015 order.

The father later petitioned for greater periods of possession and the right to make educational and medical decisions. He also sought the exclusive right to determine his son’s primary residence so his home would be the child’s primary residence during the school year.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Child Support in Excess of Statutory Guidelines

Published on: January 28, 2019 | by Francesca Blackard

After a court issues a Texas child support order based on an agreement of the parties, the trial court may only modify the order if there has been a material and substantial change in circumstances. If there has been such a change, the court has the discretion to modify the order. The court’s analysis depends on the resources of the obligor. If the parent paying child support has net monthly resources equal to or less than an identified amount, currently $8,550, the court must base the presumptive award on a percentage of the net resources and the number of children. If the net monthly resources are greater than this amount, then the court has the discretion to order amounts greater than the presumptive award, depending on the parties’ income and the “proven needs” of the children. Thus, the court must determine the proven needs of the children before awarding an amount greater than that set by the guidelines. If the children’s needs exceed the presumptive award, the court allocates the difference between the parties. No party can be required to pay more than 100% of the proven needs of the children. Unfortunately, neither the legislature nor the courts have clearly defined “needs,” but the Texas Supreme Court has stated that needs are not determined by the family’s lifestyle or the parents’ ability to pay.

In a recent case, a father challenged a modification that ordered him to pay an amount greater than the monthly guidelines.

The father also challenged whether there was a material and substantial change in circumstances, but the appeals court readily found that a significant increase in the father’s income since the Agreed Order was sufficient to support a modification.

Personal Injury Recoveries in Texas Divorce

Published on: January 21, 2019 | by Kelly McClure

When a court divides property in a Texas divorce, it presumes all property possessed by either spouse during the marriage or upon the divorce is community property. Community property is all property acquired by other spouse during the marriage, other than separate property. Separate property is either property owned or claimed by the spouse before the marriage or acquired by one spouse during the marriage by gift, devise, or descent. Personal injury recoveries are separate property, but the community estate may recover for medical expenses , lost earning capacity, and other expenses the community estate incurred due to the injury. The spouse asserting that the property is separate has the burden of showing which part of the settlement is separate property. Language in a settlement agreement identifying the basis for the payment may displace the presumption of community property and create a new presumption that the funds are separate property. In such cases, the spouse claiming the property is community property must provide evidence to rebut the presumption that it is separate.

A husband recently challenged the trial court’s property division, partly because it denied his reimbursement claim related to funds from a settlement. He had settled a discrimination claim against his employer during the marriage. The settlement included mental anguish, pain and suffering, and physical injuries, but did not include back pay or front pay. He agreed to resign as part of the settlement. He deposited the funds into a savings account.

Funds from the savings account were used to make a down payment on the couple’s home, the monthly mortgage, and the final payment. The mortgage was in the husband’s name, but the deed was in both names.

Parentage in the Modern Era: What to Know When Baby is on the Way and No Wedding Day

Published on: January 16, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

Parenting is hard. Those three words are enough to capture the entire outlook of parenthood from the moment that the sweet child enters the world.

In today’s world, parenting has taken on a number of new issues such as parenting after a divorce, as an unmarried couple; single parenting; and co-parenting. Briefly stated, parenting is hard. According to the National Statistics Unit, in 2016 39.8% of births in the U.S. are by unmarried women. It is important that expecting or current modern parents consult with an attorney who can help guide them through the legal processes of ensuring full legal rights to conservatorship, possession of and access to their child and identifying numerous nuances that are becoming more and more prevalent in this modern era. Parents today face many challenges that older generations never even dreamed about.

Geographic Restriction in Designating Primary Residence in Texas Custody Cases

Published on: January 15, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

A custodial parent sometimes wishes to move away following a Texas child custody case. Although some parents may want to get the child away from the other parent, there are often legitimate reasons for a parent to want to move. The primary consideration in the litigation of relocation issues is the child’s best interest. Although the Texas family law statutes do not set forth how a court should determine the child’s best interests, the Texas Supreme Court has stated courts should consider the public policies listed in Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.001. Texas has a public policy of assuring frequent and continuing contact with parents who act in the child’s best interest. There is also a public policy to provide a safe and stable environment for the child. Finally, Texas has a policy to encourage parents to share the rights and duties of raising the child after separation or divorce.

A father recently challenged a divorce decree that allowed the mother to designate the child’s primary residence without regard to location. The couple’s child was born in June 2011 and they stopped living together as husband and wife in August of the same year. The mother filed for divorce in 2015, alleging the child’s father had committed adultery. She also alleged he left her with the intention of abandonment and had stayed away for at least a year. The trial court named the mother joint managing conservator with the right to designate the child’s primary residence without any geographic limitations. The court also ordered the father to pay child support.

The father appealed, arguing in part that the trial court abused its discretion by not placing a geographic limitation on the child’s primary residence because the mother planned to move to Colorado.

Texas Appeals Court Reverses Spousal Maintenance Due to Insufficient Evidence

Published on: January 14, 2019 | by McClure Law Group

Courts may award spousal maintenance to provide temporary and rehabilitative support to a spouse who meets specific statutory requirements in a Texas divorce case. Generally, the spouse requesting maintenance cannot have enough property to meet his or her minimum reasonable needs and must meet other statutory requirements. A spouse seeking maintenance must overcome a presumption that spousal maintenance is not warranted. This presumption can be rebutted if the spouse requesting maintenance shows that he or she was diligent in trying to earn enough income to provide for his or her reasonable needs or in developing the necessary skills to provide for those needs during separation and while the case was pending. The spouse seeking maintenance must make this showing even if the other spouse does not participate in the case.

A former husband recently challenged the spousal maintenance awarded to his wife following a trial he did not participate in. The couple had been married nearly 15 years when they separated. The wife filed for divorce about a year later. The husband was served, but failed to answer or appear. The trial court held a short hearing and granted the divorce. The court also awarded the wife the family home, retirement from her husband’s income, retirement in her own name and two vehicles. The court also ordered the husband to pay $500 spousal maintenance per month.

The husband appealed the spousal maintenance award. He argued the trial court abused its discretion because there was insufficient evidence that the wife lacked the ability to earn sufficient income to provide for her minimum reasonable needs. He also argued there was no evidence to rebut the presumption against awarding maintenance. Additionally, the award was made in perpetuity. Finally, he argued the award was greater than the statutory maximum.