in Re Tara Brook Tyndell
06-15-00086-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 28, 2015Background
- SAPCR involving child K.T.W. began in Hunt County with Aunt and Uncle as joint managing conservators; Mother Tara had possessory conservatorship with visitation.
- Mother filed SAPCR modification in Hunt County (March 11, 2011) and later a Jefferson County divorce petition alleging an informal marriage (August 2, 2011).
- Mother moved to transfer continuing, exclusive jurisdiction from Hunt County to Jefferson County (August 15, 2011).
- The trial court denied transfer (June 16, 2015) and denied reconsideration (September 26, 2015).
- Child had resided with Aunt and Uncle in Hunt County since August 2010; Jefferson County proceedings sought to dissolve an alleged informal marriage but evidence of a valid marriage was not presented.
- Mother’s mandamus petition contends the SAPCR should have been transferred under Tex. Fam. Code §155.201(a) and argues the court abused its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory transfer was proper under Tex. Fam. Code §155.201(a). | Tyndell argues a divorce was pending in Jefferson County and seeks transfer. | Nowell contends no valid informal marriage evidence exists to trigger mandatory transfer. | No mandatory transfer; lack of proof of a new marriage precludes triggering §155.201(a). |
| Whether transferring would be in the Child's best interest. | Tyndell asserts efficiency and consistency by uniting proceedings. | Nowell argues keeping SAPCR in Hunt County serves best interests given child's ties. | Transfer not in best interests; Hunt County is better positioned to determine the child’s welfare. |
| Whether Mother diligently sought a hearing on the transfer motion. | Tyndell maintained diligent pursuit of transfer, despite delays. | Nowell emphasizes repeated scheduling failures and substantial delays caused by Mother. | Mother failed to diligently pursue hearing; court did not abuse discretion in denying transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.A.S., 246 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (mandatory transfer requires proof of both parents’ biological child and an existing marriage to be dissolved)
- Powell, 79 S.W.3d 814 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (trial court has discretionlimited when transfer is not properly supported by grounds)
- Garza v. Texas Dept. of Human Services, 757 S.W.2d 44 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988) (mandatory transfer provisions not to be used to manipulate venue)
- Trader v. Dear, 565 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. 1978) (best interest of child governs conservatorship outcomes; forum considerations secondary)