Generally, there must be a material and substantial change in circumstances to justify a modification of a Texas custody order. An appeals court recently considered whether a father judicially admitted the existence of a material and substantial change when he objected to the modification sought by the mother, but petitioned, in the alternative, for different modifications.
Texas family law includes a presumption that parents should be appointed joint managing conservators. The law does not require, however, that the parents be given equal possession just because they are joint managing conservators. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.135. There is a rebuttable presumption that the standard possession order is in the child’s best interest, but that presumption only applies to children who are at least three years old. For younger children, the court must consider “all relevant factors.” The statute specifically requires the court consider who provided care before and during the proceedings, how separation from either party may affect the child, the availability and willingness of the parties to care for the child, and the child’s needs, along with other specified factors. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.254.
A father recently challenged the possession schedule and decision-making authority granted to the mother, arguing in part that the court should have awarded equal time or the standard possession schedule.
Sometimes one or both parents move after a custody order is issued. When parents move, they often want to modify custody and visitation. However, if both parents have moved out of state, issues of jurisdiction may arise. In a recent case, a father sought a Texas custody modification of a North Carolina custody order.
Courts often keep siblings together; however, in some Texas child custody cases, it is in the children’s best interest for them to be split up. When one or more children live with one parent and one or more children live with the other parent, each parent may be obligated to pay child support to the other. A father recently challenged how the court calculated the child support the mother would have to pay him after he received custody of one of their four children. In issuing its ruling, the appellate court’s opinion turned on the definition of “multiple households” under the Texas Family Code.
Texas family law has a strong presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to give custody to a parent. Generally, the court must appoint sole managing conservatorship to the parent instead of a non-parent unless it finds doing so would not be in the child’s best interest due to significant impairment of the child’s emotional development or physical health. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131(a). What if the parent lives in another country? A Texas appeals court recently considered this issue.
Many couples attempt to reconcile after breaking up or divorcing. Moving back in together can effect a parent’s obligation to provide child support. If the parent who is obligated to pay child support is contributing to the support of the household, he or she may be entitled to a credit for their child-support obligation. In a recent case, a mother challenged a court’s order giving the father a credit against back child support for the period of time when they had lived together with the children.
A court may order one joint managing conservator to pay Texas child support to another joint managing conservator. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.138. The child’s best interest is the primary consideration in determining child support. There may, therefore, be occasions where a court orders the parent with primary physical custody to nonetheless pay child support to the other parent, when they are both joint managing conservators. A mother recently challenged an order to pay child support when she had been awarded the exclusive right to determine the child’s primary residence.
In an ideal situation, child custody may be resolved by agreement, potentially following mediation. In some cases, however, Texas child custody cases become long protracted affairs with disputes that last for years.
For many Texas co-parents, relocating to another state is their “white whale:” relentlessly sought after, but seldom granted by the family courts. However, one Texas mother recently obtained the (nearly) unobtainable. This mother had spent years dealing with a co-parent, the father, who made even the simplest of child-rearing decisions difficult. The father had cancelled dentist appointments without telling the mother, hid the children from their mother, taught the children how to fight (by telling them to hit the mother), and refused to consent to the children’s enrollment in daycare despite one of the children suffering from speech delays that required professional attention. Nonetheless, this mother persisted.
On June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Texas issued a ruling that is sure to have a major impact on future non-parent custody cases in the state of Texas. In the case of In re C.J.C., the Supreme Court of Texas found that the presumption that it is in the best interest of a child to award possession to a fit parent versus a non-parent extends to modification cases.[1] This decision is certain to be seen as a major win for parents, as the Court reinforced the long-held notion that in most cases, a parent having custody of their child is best for the child.
The case involved grandparents of the child and the boyfriend of the child’s deceased mother attempting to modify the possession of the child and gain at least some court-ordered possession from the child’s father. The trial court found that the boyfriend was entitled to some possession and even some rights, such as the right to consent to emergency medical decisions.[2] The child’s father appealed this decision. Continue Reading ›
Texas Divorce Attorney Blog