Curtis Wayne Teer v. Paula Neal, 11-15-00061-CV

Paula Neal filed for a protective order against Curtis Wayne Teer after multiple alleged assaults during their 2012–2013 relationship; she supported the application with an affidavit and photographs of injuries.
A temporary restraining order issued February 6, 2015; a final protective order was signed after a February 18 hearing at which Neal testified.
Teer was served while incarcerated but did not appear, request transport, or seek to appear by phone; the prosecutor noted Teer had not requested to appear.
Neal described repeated, violent assaults (including choking and sexual assault), police reports from 2013, and recent attempts by Teer in jail to contact her; she testified she feared future violence if he were released.
The trial court found past family violence had occurred and that future family violence was likely; Teer moved postjudgment seeking relief, which the court treated as a motion for new trial and denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding the hearing and entering the final protective order in Teer’s absence and denying a new trial	Neal: hearing and order were proper because Teer was served and made no request to appear	Teer: failure to appear/answer was by mistake/accident, he had a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not harm Neal (invoking Craddock)	Court: No abuse of discretion. Teer did not request transport or other means to appear and failed to satisfy Craddock (no affidavit or prima facie meritorious defense; did not address prejudice)
Whether evidence was sufficient to show family violence was likely to occur in the future	Neal: history of repeated, violent assaults, recent jail contacts, and credible fear of future harm support likelihood	Teer: challenges sufficiency of evidence to show future risk	Court: Evidence (past violent pattern, photographs, jail contacts, letter, potential for release) was legally and factually sufficient to support finding that future family violence was likely

Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (test for setting aside default judgments)
In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (inmate must request transport or justify need to be present in civil proceedings; may appear by phone)
Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1966) (motion for new trial must allege facts and be supported by affidavit to show a meritorious defense)
Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2009) (trial court abuses discretion if Craddock elements are met and new trial is denied)
In re Epperson, 213 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (past violent conduct can be competent evidence to show likelihood of future family violence)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)