Culver v. Culver, 360 S.W.3d 526

Civil protective-order proceeding arising from alleged family violence; ex parte order issued, hearing held, and nunc pro tunc judgments entered with plenary jurisdiction; multiple recusal motions and appeals filed; at issue is validity and handling of modified judgments under Rule 329b; court affirmed trial court on nine holdings; Kerri Culver represented herself for portions and later counsel appeared briefly.
Protective order sought to restrict contact, proximity, and communication with Billy Culver and his parents; order originally limited firearms; later nunc pro tunc judgments extended prohibitions.
Hearing occurred Sept. 10 and Sept. 28, 2010, with interim recusal motion; judge referred recusal to administrative judge; later judgments dated Sept. 27, 2010; October 28, 2010 modification added father’s workplace.
Record shows evidence of alleged threats, pursuit, and assault (e.g., car confrontation, chasing, throwing a phone) supporting finding of family violence and likelihood of future violence.
Appellate-mandated standard: review for abuse of discretion; nine primary holdings issued on sufficiency, discovery, continuances, counsel, Brady, misconduct, recusal, findings, and reversibility.
Court’s plenary jurisdiction allowed modification without new hearing under Rule 329b; due process concerns addressed and rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports the protective order	Culver argues insufficient evidence.	Culver contends evidence shows fear and past violence.	Evidence supported both past violence and likelihood of future violence.
Whether the denial of discovery was error	Discovery motion should be granted.	Expedited schedule limits discovery; no court rule requires it.	No error; discovery not required under expedited protective-order process.
Whether denial of continuances was error	continuances needed for preparation.	No sufficient cause; no affidavit; trial court did not abuse discretion.	No abuse of discretion in denying continuances.
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel applies	Civil cases may require effective counsel.	No constitutional right to counsel in protective-order civil matter.	No reversible error; no right to effective assistance in this civil case.
Whether modified judgments violated due process or Chapter 87	Modified judgments were void; due process violation.	Court could modify under Rule 329b with plenary jurisdiction; Chapter 87 not required here.	Trial court validly modified under plenary power; no reversible error; affirm.

In re Epperson, 213 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2007) (protective orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse of discretion standard for civil decisions)
Rogers v. Peeler, 146 S.W.3d 765 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2004) (definition of assault applies in civil and criminal contexts)
Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (context of evidentiary and witness-credibility considerations)
Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1996) (harmful error presumed in absence of findings only if needed)