In Re Mam
346 S.W.3d 10
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Parents divorced in 2005; Mother and Father named joint managing conservators with Father having exclusive right to designate primary residence within Dallas and contiguous counties.
- Original decree required education and medical decisions to be by agreement between the parents.
- In 2006 Father sought to modify to sole education decision-maker and adjust travel; Mother sought sole managing conservator or designation rights and education/medical decisions.
- Bench trial in July 2008; 2009 order granted Mother exclusive education/health decision rights within Dallas area; Father ordered to pay 75% of private school tuition and $1,500 monthly support.
- Father relocated to Atlanta during litigation; trial court found relocation impeded parenting orders and continued residency restriction to Dallas/contiguous counties.
- This appeal challenges child support amount, private school tuition, relocation denial, and exclusive health/education decision rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private school tuition and support | Father: private school not proven need; support amount excessive. | Mother: trial court correctly tied support to guidelines and private school as need. | Modified: no private school tuition requirement; support reduced to $1,200/month. |
| Education decisions and health-related consent | Father: decisions should remain by agreement; move makes joint decision impractical. | Mother: should have exclusive rights due to distance and child's best interest. | Affirmed exclusive rights to Mother for education and health-related consent. |
| Relocation to Atlanta | Father: should be allowed to relocate with child for better opportunities. | Mother: relocation would disrupt stability and benefit from staying in Dallas area. | Relocation denied; residency restriction maintained. |
| Relocation impact on parenting plan and best interests | Father's relocation plan compatible with child's needs; ongoing access possible. | Mother's plan offers stability; distance complicates co-parenting. | Court's best-interest determination upheld; order modified as to other issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.C.J., 244 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (trial court's broad discretion in conservatorship; credibility; best interests)
- Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (best-interest factors after relocation; public policy)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors guiding best-interest analysis)
- Doyle v. Doyle, 955 S.W.2d 478 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997) (logistics of education/health decisions across geographic distance)
- In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (legal sufficiency in modification; guidelines applicability)
- Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005) (abuse-of-discretion review in family cases; probative evidence standard)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse-of-discretion framework in trial court decisions)