Andrew Goss v. Shakia Goss
04-16-00809-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- Andrew and Shakia Goss were married (1999) and had eight children; Andrew filed for divorce on February 10, 2015.
- Trial to the court; primary dispute concerned conservatorship of the children. Three witnesses testified (Andrew, Shakia, counselor who prepared the social study).
- Andrew alleged Shakia had physically abused him and sought appointment as sole managing conservator (or joint conservator with exclusive right to designate children’s primary residence).
- Trial court appointed Andrew and Shakia joint managing conservators, awarding Andrew the right to designate the oldest child’s residence and Shakia the right to designate the other seven children’s residence; imposed residence restriction to Bexar County and an extended possession order; ordered child support and applied a $200 childcare credit to Andrew’s first payment.
- Andrew appealed pro se, raising three issues: time limits at trial denied his due process, the court erred in appointing joint managing conservators despite alleged family violence, and the court miscalculated childcare expense credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrew) | Defendant's Argument (Shakia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial time limits deprived Andrew of due process | Court limited presentation time and prevented most of his evidence | Time limits were agreed/announced; Andrew did not use allotted time or object | Overruled — error not preserved (no objection or offer of proof) |
| Appointment of joint managing conservators despite alleged abuse | Credible evidence (police reports, past conviction) showed Shakia abused Andrew, precluding joint conservatorship; sought sole conservatorship | Denied a pattern/history of intentional abuse; inconsistent/remote incidents; counselor found no long-term pattern | Overruled — trial court reasonably discredited/weighted evidence; only 2015 incident fell within 2-year statutory window and was disputed; no abuse of discretion |
| Child-care expense calculation | Trial court miscalculated amount Shakia owed him for child-care | Trial court credited $200 to Andrew’s first support payment | Overruled — issue inadequately briefed (no authority cited) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaylor Inv. Trust P’shp, 322 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (trial court has inherent power to control docket and manage trials)
- Roberts v. Roberts, 402 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (trial court discretion in child’s best interest determinations; deference to witness credibility)
- In the Interest of A.E.A., 406 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (preservation required when time limits prevent presentation of evidence)
- Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (standard for reversing trial court for abuse of discretion)
- Stallworth v. Stallworth, 201 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (court may disregard remote incidents of violence outside statutory look-back period)
- Burns v. Burns, 116 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (factfinder entitled to resolve conflicting accounts; credibility determinations control)
- Alexander v. Rogers, 247 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (single incident of violence may or may not establish a history of abuse depending on context)
- In the Estate of Blankenship, 392 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (issues inadequately briefed when appellant cites no authority)