in the Interest of A.G.B. and L.A.B., 09-16-00176-CV

Deena Burt-Barnes and Eric Barnes divorced in 2011; custody and possession orders followed, including a 2013 order (not in clerk’s record) that left Eric as sole managing conservator and provided Deena limited unsupervised Saturday possession.
In December 2013 Deena filed to modify custody, alleging Eric had moved the children and was alienating them; Eric counter-petitioned to further restrict Deena’s visitation.
At the April 2016 modification hearing, the trial court found a material and substantial change since the 2013 order, adjusted Deena’s possession to certain Saturdays and required 72 hours’ notice to exercise possession.
Deena appealed, raising four issues: (1) exclusion of evidence at trial; (2) factual insufficiency of the evidence supporting retention of Eric as sole managing conservator; (3) that the trial court aided the “exclusion” of the parent-child relationship; and (4) abuse of discretion in awarding sole custody to Eric.
The court heard the children in chambers (ages 12 and 16), who expressed a preference to live with their father; trial evidence showed the family had moved to Burnet County and Eric was living in a guesthouse and unemployed but claimed he supported the children from house-sale proceeds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Deena)	Defendant's Argument (Eric)	Held
1. Trial court excluded critical evidence	Excluded evidence about finances, videos of alienation, drug/alcohol tests, insurance card	Objections justified (timeliness/relevance); some items not offered into evidence	Error not preserved: no offer of proof; issue overruled
2. Factual sufficiency to keep Eric as sole managing conservator	No evidence Deena unfit; Eric financially dependent on others; not involved with children	Children prefer father; circumstances changed since prior order; some evidence Eric supports children	No abuse of discretion: some substantive, probative evidence supports modification
3. Trial court aided “exclusion” of parent-child relationship	Court’s actions (unspecified) allegedly enabled alienation and exclusion	Court properly limited evidence to relevant time frame and followed procedure	No reversible error; overall decision supported by record
4. Abuse of discretion awarding sole custody to Eric / varying from standard possession order	Award not in children's best interest (financial instability, drinking, lack of involvement)	Children prefer father; trial court considered Holley factors; evidence of changed circumstances	No abuse of discretion: best-interest factors and children’s preferences support result

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (standard for abuse of discretion in custody modification)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child's best interest)
Trammell v. Trammell, 485 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (burden on movant to show modification warranted)