Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 331 S.W.3d 864

Celia filed for divorce from Jaime and sought sole managing conservatorship with Jaime nonresponsive to summons.
At prove-up, Celia testified to two children born during the marriage and sought primary residence for Celia with child support from Jaime.
The trial court granted a divorce, appointed joint managing conservators, designated Celia as primary residence, and ordered Jaime to pay $750 monthly child support; various marital assets and debts were allocated.
Jaime perfected a restricted appeal challenging the sufficiency of evidence on (a) parentage of M.E., (b) amount of child support, and (c) division of the marital estate.
The appellate court held Jaime met the timing/standing grounds for a restricted appeal and addressed the sufficiency issues, leading to partial reversal and remand.
On remand, the court reversed the parts of the decree awarding $750 monthly child support and the property division, remanding for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there legally sufficient evidence M.E. is a child of the marriage?	Jaime argues no evidence shows M.E. born during marriage; due process concerns apply as a third party.	Celia's testimony that two children were born during the marriage supports paternity by presumption.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports M.E. as a child of the marriage.
Is the child support amount supported by evidence of Jaime's net resources?	No evidence of Jaime's net resources; $750 violates guidelines given potential minimum income.	Trial court could set support amount; evidence lacking on Jaime's income is insufficient to challenge.	No; trial court abused discretion by setting $750 without evidentiary foundation on Jaime's net resources.
Is there evidence to support the property division?	No value evidence for marital residence or other property; division lacks basis.	Trial court has discretion to divide equitably; some basis exists in record.	No; there was an absence of evidence on property values, requiring remand.

Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (restricted appeal standards and facial error review)
Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (standards for restricted appeals)
E.M.V. v. Brown, 312 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010) (trial court must have evidence to support division and findings)
Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005) (sufficiency of evidence in abuse-of-discretion review)
A.B.P. v. P.R., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009) (overlaps between legal sufficiency and abuse of discretion in family law)
Watson v. Watson, 286 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (sufficiency standards in family law review)
Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (standards for legal sufficiency review)