Elizabeth M. Trammell v. Fletcher v. Trammell, Sr.
485 S.W.3d 571
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Elizabeth and Fletcher divorced in 2011; final decree awarded Elizabeth $6,000/month child support, $8,000/month spousal support to Elizabeth, and required Fletcher to pay 100% of children’s educational and extracurricular expenses. Elizabeth was given exclusive decision-making authority over education and certain medical/mental-health consents.
- In November 2013 Fletcher filed an amended petition to modify child support, educational expense allocation, and decision-making/consent rights, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances and that modification was in the children’s best interest.
- Fletcher introduced uncontroverted evidence that his income fell from about $802,000 in 2011 to roughly $255,000 in 2013 and that he had exhausted credit lines and faced insolvency; he continued to pay spousal support and other obligations and feared bankruptcy if support could not be modified.
- Fletcher also testified he had become more involved with the children since the divorce, sought a shared role in educational and medical/mental-health decisions as the children aged, and had previously attempted to communicate his financial concerns to Elizabeth.
- The trial court reduced Fletcher’s child support to $2,565/month (statutory guideline amount), reallocated educational expenses (Fletcher 60% / Elizabeth 40%), and modified conservatorship to require shared decision-making for education and consent to invasive medical, dental, surgical, psychological, and psychiatric care.
- Elizabeth appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency to support (1) the child-support reduction and (2–4) the modifications of her exclusive decision-making and consent rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trammell) | Defendant's Argument (Trammell, Sr.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Reduction of child support from $6,000 to $2,565 | Trial evidence insufficient to show material/substantial change or that reduction is in children’s best interest; father agreed to obligations | Father’s income substantially decreased, he is insolvent, exhausted credit, and cannot sustainably meet obligations; modification necessary and in children’s best interest | Court affirmed reduction — sufficient evidence of material/substantial change and best interest, no abuse of discretion |
| 2. Modification of exclusive educational decision-making | No sufficient evidence to justify removing Elizabeth’s exclusive right | Children are older, educational needs and costs increased; father more involved and seeks shared decision-making and shared cost responsibility | Court affirmed modification to shared decision-making — supported by evidence and best interest finding |
| 3. Modification of exclusive right to consent to invasive medical/dental/surgical care | Insufficient evidence to modify consent rights | Father desires input and ability to consent given family mental-health history and shared responsibility; greater parental involvement is in best interest | Court affirmed shared consent rights — supported by evidence and best interest finding |
| 4. Modification of exclusive right to consent to psychological/psychiatric treatment | Insufficient evidence to alter exclusive consent for sensitive treatment | Father’s involvement and family mental-health concerns justify shared consent; shared decisions promote children’s welfare | Court affirmed shared consent rights — supported by evidence and best interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (standard of review for child support modification: abuse of discretion)
- Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard and presumption in favor of trial court’s order)
- McLane v. McLane, 263 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (child’s best interest paramount in support modifications)
- Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (best-interest principle in conservatorship and support matters)
- Vannerson v. Vannerson, 857 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (legal-sufficiency review focuses on evidence supporting the trial court)
- McGuire v. McGuire, 4 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (decrease in payer’s earnings can support modification of child support)
- Friermood v. Friermood, 25 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (trial court’s broad discretion in modifying support and conservatorship)