Dallas Divorce Lawyer Blog

Obstacles to Obtaining Protective Orders in Texas against Out-of-State Residents

June 30, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Both State and Federal laws apply to the procedures for courts to issue and enforce domestic protective orders that can be issued to prevent a respondent from contacting, threatening, or harassing the petitioner after certain allegations are proven to an acceptable degree. Although federal laws that apply to protective order respondents are enforceable from coast to coast, the existence of a protective order in one state may not be sufficient for a similar order to enter in another state. The Texas Supreme Court recently published an opinion that declined a Texas woman’s request to enter a protective order against her ex-lover, who resided in Massachusetts.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the Petitioner had been granted a protective order in Massachusetts after the Respondent made credible threats of abuse and violence. After moving to Texas, she requested a Texas district court enter a similar order to protect her from the Respondent while under Texas jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the Texas court had no jurisdiction over him to enter such an order, and after conflicting rulings, the appeal made its way to the highest civil court in Texas. The Court emphasized that for Texas courts to assert personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have “minimum contacts’ with Texas that are purposeful and not merely random or incidental. This ensures that the defendant has availed themselves of the privileges of conducting activities within Texas, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. In this case, the Respondent, a Massachusetts resident, had no contacts with Texas related to the Petitioner’s allegations, which all occurred in Massachusetts. The absence of such contacts made it clear that Texas could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the Respondent, highlighting the necessity for jurisdictional connections to the forum state in matters involving protective orders.

The opinion helps demonstrate the importance of understanding and adhering to jurisdictional requirements when dealing with cases of domestic violence and protective orders. The court’s decision to vacate the protective order due to lack of personal jurisdiction demonstrates that even serious allegations of domestic abuse must meet specific legal criteria related to the court’s power to adjudicate. It also illustrates the procedural protections afforded to individuals who are not residents of the forum state, ensuring that they are not subjected to legal proceedings in a state with which they have no meaningful connection. This reinforces the need for precise legal navigation when pursuing protective orders across state lines, as failing to meet jurisdictional standards can result in the dismissal of the case.

Judicial Discretion in Awarding Attorney’s Fees in Texas Divorce Cases

June 12, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Divorce proceedings in Texas can quickly become costly, especially when both parties hire attorneys to navigate the complex process. The total legal expenses can escalate significantly, particularly in cases where financial disparities exist between the spouses. In such scenarios, one spouse might need to enlist forensic investigators as part of their legal team to accurately assess and claim their fair share of the marital estate.

When there is a substantial imbalance in the legal fees incurred by each party, the court may intervene and order the wealthier spouse to cover a portion of the other’s legal expenses. This measure ensures a fairer financial footing for both parties during the divorce. A recent ruling by the Texas Court of Appeals highlights a situation where the court deemed it appropriate to award attorney’s fees as part of the divorce settlement.

In divorce proceedings, the court has the discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees if it deems them necessary and justified. The party requesting the fees must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the fees are reasonable and necessary. This can include detailed records of the hours spent on the case, the nature of the legal work, the complexity of the issues involved, the attorney’s experience, and the prevailing hourly rates in the local legal community. The court then evaluates this evidence to determine if the fees align with what is customary for similar services in the area.

Texas Appeals Court Partially Reverses Parental Rights Termination

May 31, 2024 | by Robert Guest

Terminating a person’s parental rights is a serious consequence. In Texas, a trial court must find clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. To meet this high standard of proof, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) will introduce evidence that termination is in a child’s best interests. However, if the Department fails to offer clear and convincing evidence, the court cannot terminate the parent’s rights. A recent Texas appellate case demonstrates the high burden of proof courts require to terminate parental rights.

Facts of the Case

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services first removed the Mother’s children from her care when the Department found them living in a U-Haul, and the Mother admitted to recently using methamphetamine. The Department placed the children with their Father, who gave the Department misleading information about their care. The Father left one child with their adult sibling, even though the Department told him not to because the sibling used drugs. The child was later found walking alone on the highway, and the Father tested positive for illegal substances. The Department then sought to terminate both parents’ rights. At the termination hearing, the caseworker testified that the Mother did not participate in a service plan to reunite with her children. She further testified that the children were exposed to drugs while in their Father’s care. The Father was also convicted of child endangerment during the case and received an eight-year sentence. The trial court terminated the Mother and Father’s parental rights. The Mother and Father appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the Mother and Father both argued there was insufficient evidence to terminate their rights. The appeals court agreed with the Mother, reversing the trial court’s decision. First, the court noted that the Department did not submit the service plan into evidence and did not specify the services the Mother had to undertake. In Texas, to terminate parental rights due to a failure to comply with a service plan, the plan must establish the specific actions necessary for reunification. Because there was no evidence of the service plan, the trial court could not have considered whether it was sufficiently specific. The court further found that the trial court should not have terminated the Mother’s parental rights based on her drug use. The Department had to prove that the parent both used a controlled substance in a manner that endangered the child’s safety and failed to complete a court-ordered substance treatment program or relapsed after completing the program. Here, the appeals court found no evidence that the Department ordered the Mother to complete a drug treatment program. The court thus reversed the trial court’s decision to terminate the Mother’s parental rights.

Texas Appeals Court Upholds Property Division and Joint Conservatorship Ruling

May 21, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a typical divorce proceeding, property division and child custody will likely be two main issues among the parties. In Texas, property owned by one spouse before the marriage is usually not subject to division. However, if the other spouse increased the property’s value through specific contributions, that spouse may be entitled to the fair market value of the improvements to the property. Importantly, the spouse’s contributions must have a causal relationship to any appreciation in market value; passive appreciations in value will not suffice. A recent Texas appellate decision demonstrates how courts award property when one spouse claims to have improved another spouse’s separate property acquired before the marriage. The case also addresses joint conservatorship of a couple’s minor children, which many courts also refer to as joint custody.

Facts of the Case

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, the Mother and Father were married for eight years and had two minor children. The Mother filed for divorce, and a trial took place before a judge. The evidence focused on real property the Mother had purchased prior to the marriage. The Father had completed renovations to the property during their marriage. The trial also focused on the Mother’s retirement account, which she opened before the marriage but received contributions during the marriage. The trial court appointed both parents as joint managing conservators of their children, awarding the Mother the right to establish the children’s primary residence. The court also denied the Father’s reimbursement claims for funds he expended to improve the Mother’s property. Finally, the court awarded 100% of the disputed property and the retirement account to the Mother. The Father appealed.

The Decision

First, the appeals court affirmed the decision to appoint the Mother as joint managing conservator with the right to establish the children’s residence. The Father attempted to present evidence that the children suffered frequent injuries and illnesses while in the Mother’s care, including a broken arm and various bruises. However, the trial court heard testimony establishing that their son broke his arm at school and not in his Mother’s care. Additionally, because the trial court had photographic evidence of the bruises, it was in the best position to credit the Mother’s testimony that they were minor injuries incidental to the children’s daily activities. Finally, while the Father claimed the Mother failed to seek adequate medical treatment and underfed the children, the children’s pediatrician opined that there was no evidence of neglect and that the Father seemed preoccupied with gathering evidence against the Mother. Therefore, the appeals court rejected the Father’s arguments on this issue.

Showing Evidence of Property Division in Texas Divorce Proceedings

April 30, 2024 | by Robert Guest

When dividing property in divorce proceedings, courts will distinguish between separate property and community property. Separate property represents any property or assets that one person has held since before they were married. Conversely, community property constitutes property or assets shared between spouses. Typically, only community property is subject to division among the former spouses. Texas courts presume that property either spouse possesses during marriage or upon the end of the marriage is community property. To overcome this presumption, a spouse must present clear and convincing evidence that they held the property separately. A recent decision from the Texas Supreme Court shows the importance of presenting adequate evidence of separate property to avoid division following a divorce.

Facts of the Case

As the Texas Supreme Court opinion explains, the Wife filed for divorce after 14 years of marriage. At trial, the Husband presented evidence that two investment accounts in his name existed before his marriage. Specifically, an expert witness testified that the Husband did not mix his accounts with community property. The expert further testified about a four-month gap in the investment statements he received. However, he concluded that the missing statements did not detract from the “established pattern of activity” over 15 years. Agreeing with the expert, the trial court found that the accounts were the Husband’s separate property, meaning they were not subject to division.

The Wife appealed, and the appeals court reversed. First, it found “no evidence” of what happened during those four months. Based on this gap in the record, it found that the Husband’s expert could not rely on an “established pattern” of account activity to adequately characterize accounts as separate property. Therefore, it reversed that portion of the trial court’s decision and sent the case back to divide the account balances. The Husband appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Appeals Court’s Parental Rights Decision

April 15, 2024 | by Robert Guest

A recent Texas Supreme Court case reviewed the termination of a father’s parental rights based in large part on his illegal drug use. The trial court found sufficient evidence to terminate the father’s parental rights, but the appeals court disagreed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision based on the evidence required to support a finding of child endangerment.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“the Department”) investigated a father who was living with his children in his car. During the investigation, the father tested positive for methamphetamine, an illegal substance. After concluding its investigation, the Department removed the father’s two young children and placed them in foster care. The Department then developed a compliance plan for reunification that required the father to submit to drug tests in order to create a drug treatment plan. He initially followed the plan, and the children were placed with their grandmother. However, he eventually tested positive for marijuana use and stopped complying with the plan. After the father was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, a trial court ordered the children returned to foster care. The father did not visit his children for several months and missed the first day of his family court trial.

After reviewing the evidence, the trial court found that it was in the children’s best interest to terminate the father’s parental rights. The appeals court reversed, finding that drug use alone could not result in termination of parental rights without a direct causal link between the drug use and harm to the children. Additionally, the appeals court found that additional facts still could not show endangerment, including homelessness, a lack of stable employment, and the failure to visit his children, among other factors. The Department appealed.

Texas Supreme Court Finds Sufficient Evidence to Terminate Mother’s Parental Rights

March 31, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court heard a case involving the termination of a mother’s parental rights. The trial court found sufficient evidence to terminate her rights, but the appeals court reversed. Ultimately, the high court reversed the appeal court’s ruling, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence and crediting a nurse’s testimony, which the court of appeals had excluded. The case demonstrates the deferential standard applied to reviewing a trial judge or jury’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the facts discussed in the opinion, this case arose after an infant arrived at the hospital with a fractured skull, brain bleed, and retinal hemorrhaging. The nurse treating the infant concluded that the injury would have required significant and intentional force, so the hospital notified local law enforcement and the Department of Family and Protective Services. Both parents blamed each other for their child’s injuries. While investigators initially focused on the Father, they concluded it was likely the Mother who caused the injuries. After the nurse testified at trial, the court terminated the Mother’s parental rights. The appeals court reversed, finding insufficient evidence to terminate her rights. The court was principally concerned that someone else could have caused the injury and cast doubt on the nurse’s testimony as to the timing of the injury. The Father and the Department filed petitions for review to the Texas Supreme Court.

The Decision

Ultimately, the high court reversed the appeals court. First, it found that the appeals court erred in excluding the nurse’s opinion testimony about causation because the Mother failed to object to the testimony at trial or on appeal. Then, it concluded that sufficient evidence existed to terminate the Mother’s parental rights. It disagreed with the appeals court, which reversed the trial court’s finding because it found insufficient evidence that the Mother directly caused the child’s injuries or endangered him due to her mental health. Applying Texas family law, the court explained that a showing of child endangerment does not require evidence that the Mother directly harmed the child.

Texas Appellate Court Partially Reverses Trial Court’s Child Support Ruling

March 1, 2024 | by Robert Guest

The amount of child support a parent must pay can depend on a number of factors. A parent’s current income and assets are relevant to their child support obligations, but courts may also consider the child’s age and needs if they justify a departure from typical child support guidelines. A court also may order retroactive child support payments in addition to future payments. Recently, a Texas appeals court partially affirmed and partially reversed a trial court’s child support order for abuse of the court’s discretion.

Facts of the Case

According to the facts discussed in the recent opinion, this dispute arose between a Mother and Father who were not married at the time their child was born and had since ended their relationship. The Mother moved from Texas to Indiana with her infant daughter to be closer to family. The Father, who remained in Texas, filed a petition with the Harris County trial court seeking a declaration of his parentage. He further asked the court to declare Texas as the child’s home state.

While the suit was pending, the Moher and Father entered into a settlement agreeing that neither party would child support until the proceeding concluded. After a bench trial, which is a trial before a judge without a jury, the judge declared that the Father was the child’s father and appointed the Mother and Father as joint conservators. It also found that Indiana was the child’s current home state, but Texas was her home state in the six months before the suit. The trial court further ordered the Father to pay child support in the future, along with retroactive child support. The Father appealed. On appeal, the Father argued that the trial court erred in naming both Indiana and Texas as the child’s home state; calculating his monthly net resources and resulting monthly child support payment; and ordering him to pay retroactive child support notwithstanding the settlement agreement.

Texas Court Sides with Mother in Appeal Highlighting Procedural Hurdles in Family Law Cases

January 31, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a recent custody case before the Texas Supreme Court, the mother appealed a trial court’s decision to terminate her parental rights, asking the court to reconsider this ruling. The appellate court originally declined to issue an order on the mother’s appeal, deciding she failed to follow an important procedural step when she filed her appeal. Later, however, the Texas Supreme Court overruled this decision, telling the appellate court it should have reached the merits of the mother’s request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a trial court in Texas issued an order terminating both the mother’s and father’s rights to parent their child. The trial court judge announced his ruling in July 2022, and the mother appealed in October 2022. The trial judge’s written ruling, though, did not issue until November 2022. At that point, the appellate court dismissed the mother’s appeal, since it was filed before the final order was issued.

The court issued a second order in January 2023, naming a guardian for the minor child. The mother filed a second appeal the same month, again asking the court to reconsider the trial court’s ruling. At that point, the court again rejected the mother’s order, telling her she should have appealed the November 2022 order instead of the January 2023 order.

Mother in Texas Family Law Case Unsuccessfully Argues for Reversal of Order Terminating Parental Rights

January 15, 2024 | by Robert Guest

In a recent case before an appellate court in Texas, the mother appealed a trial court’s ruling terminating her parental rights to three children. On appeal, the mother argued that the evidence presented during trial was insufficient to find that she was unable to parent her children. The higher court reviewed the evidence, considered the mother’s argument, and ultimately affirmed the original decision. The mother’s rights therefore remained terminated after the appellate court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

This case began when the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services filed an emergency petition with a trial court in January 2022, alleging that the mother of three children had been exposing her kids to both alcohol abuse and domestic violence. After holding a hearing, the court decided that the three children should live temporarily with their aunt, until the mother could find a stable job, take parenting classes, and work with a country drug court. The court then ordered the mother to complete these steps before she appeared again for trial.

Ultimately, the court held a trial in June 2023 and found that the mother had not taken any of the steps that would allow her to regain custody of her children. The court terminated her parental rights, and she promptly appealed the decision.