in the Interest of A.S., a Child, 05-16-01055-CV

Department filed suit in July 2015 seeking protection/conservatorship of A.S. and termination of parental rights; trial court made Department temporary managing conservator and required parents to complete services.
Mother completed required services; Father did not. The Department, Mother, Father, and attorneys executed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) appointing Mother sole managing conservator and Father possessory conservator with supervised visits.
MSA provided supervised visits at a specified McDonald’s or other neutral location from 1–4 p.m., supervised by a grandmother or Mother’s designee; it also enjoined Father from being within 500 feet of certain locations.
First supervised visit under the MSA was volatile: Father allegedly tried to leave with the child and was seen with a knife; police were called. Child’s attorney recommended visits at a protective facility (Hannah’s House).
At prove-up hearing, CPS testified the Department would not have agreed to the MSA terms had it known these events would occur and was concerned the MSA’s visitation terms endangered the child. Trial court modified the MSA visitation location to Family Place/Hannah’s House and made an affirmative family-violence finding; judgment otherwise tracked the MSA.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Mother/Dept’s Argument	Held
Authority to vary MSA under Fam. Code §153.0071 when family violence present	Trial court lacked authority to modify MSA terms; Mother was not impaired by family violence at mediation, so §153.0071(e) entitles parties to judgment on compliant MSA	§153.0071(e-1) permits court to decline or modify judgment when family violence impaired a party’s decision-making and the MSA is not in child’s best interest; modification protects child	Court: Statutory exception applies; record supports implied finding that family violence impaired Mother’s decision-making and MSA visitation was not in child’s best interest — modification was permissible.
Due process / presence at hearing and effect of family-violence finding	Father argued he was denied due process because he was not present to rebut allegations and that the family-violence finding was improper because the final order varied from MSA	Court and respondents: Father was listed as present in reporter’s record; family-violence finding supported deviation under the statute and had no further adverse effect shown	Court: Issue inadequately briefed and unsupported by record; resolved against Father.
Protective order entry	Father claimed trial court erred entering a protective order against him	Respondents noted the court stated it would enter such an order but the judgment contains none	Court: Complaint unsupported by record; resolved against Father.

In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (statute limits trial court’s ability to refuse compliant MSAs but contains exception for family violence)
Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (appellate briefs must cite authorities and record; court not required to independently research issues)