in the Interest of B.U. and K.U., Children, 02-15-00051-CV

Background

B.U. (appellant, pro se) and R.E. (appellee, pro se at time of appeal; had trial counsel) litigated a suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning modification of child support and possession.
The parties had an agreed parenting plan containing a mediation clause; B.U. argued that clause deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and R.E. of standing to seek modification.
Trial produced temporary orders, a final trial on December 17, 2014 (where the court announced a $20,000 attorney-fee award), and a January 23, 2015 hearing modifying the characterization of the fee award to be taxed as costs rather than additional child support.
B.U. raised multiple complaints on appeal about jurisdiction/standing, the trial court’s temporary orders, the court’s refusal to adopt his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and various attorney-fee and contempt-related rulings.
The court addressed standing/jurisdiction, mootness of temporary-orders complaints, adequacy of findings/conclusions, characterization and sufficiency of attorney-fee awards, and denied other miscellaneous and procedurally improper requests by B.U.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (B.U.)	Defendant's Argument (R.E.)	Held
Whether the mediation clause in the parenting plan deprives the court of jurisdiction / R.E. of standing	Mediation clause required mediation first; therefore court lacked jurisdiction and R.E. lacked standing	Family code grants statutory standing to a party affected by an order to seek modification; mediation clause does not oust court jurisdiction	Court held B.U. wrong; mediation clause did not deprive R.E. of standing or the trial court of jurisdiction
Whether complaints about temporary orders remain reviewable	Temporary-orders procedures were flawed and deprived B.U. of relief	Final judgment renders challenges to temporary orders moot	Court held these complaints moot and overruled them
Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing B.U.’s proposed findings and conclusions	Trial court should adopt B.U.’s submitted findings/conclusions	Trial court may make its own findings; not required to adopt unsupported or contrary drafts	Court held no abuse; trial court may rewrite or reject proposed findings
Classification and awarding of attorney’s fees ($20,000)	Fees improperly characterized as child support and/or unsupported by evidence; January 23 modification improper because R.E. absent	Trial court heard fee evidence at trial; fee amount supported; January 23 hearing addressed legal basis (taxed as costs) not sufficiency	Court affirmed; fee award supported and recharacterization to costs valid
Sufficiency of evidence for contempt-related $3,500 fee award	Evidence insufficient to support $3,500 contempt-related fee award	Contempt judgments are not reviewable on ordinary appeal	Court declined review of contempt fee; overruled the issue as unreviewable
Miscellaneous procedural and relief requests filed in appellate court	Various motions seeking relief and unusual procedures	Appellate forum inappropriate for many of these requests	Court denied or overruled miscellaneous and procedurally improper requests

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is component of subject-matter jurisdiction)
M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Novak, 52 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2001) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction strips court of authority)
Clint Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Marquez, 478 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2016) (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived)
Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2004) (standard of review for standing is de novo)
In re S.A.M., 321 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (party affected by an order has statutory standing to seek modification)
Tucker v. Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. 2013) (trial court may reconsider characterization of fee awards)
Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 50 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (contempt judgments not reviewable on ordinary appeal)