in the Interest of C.M.C., a Child, 05-15-01359-CV

Background

Child C.M.C. born 2005; parents were named joint managing conservators in a 2006 agreed order that set alternating week possession starting at 18 months and no child support.
Mother (McKinney) filed to modify in 2014 seeking a standard possession order during the school year, mutual right of first refusal, telephone access, and child support, alleging material and substantial changes and that modifications were in the child’s best interest.
Mother presented evidence that, since kindergarten, C.M.C. (third grade at trial) endured twice-daily ~1.5-hour round trips between Lewisville and McKinney on half of school days, with alleged effects on sleep, focus, mood, and school performance; some teacher concerns and after‑school tutoring were noted.
Mother also introduced evidence of significant co‑parenting hostility: Father’s repeated derogatory remarks toward Mother and restrictions on Mother’s phone access with the child during Father’s possession; Father communicated mainly through his wife (Stepmother).
Father defended the status quo: argued shared possession was what the child always knew, denied the travel caused harm, attributed focus issues to ADHD, acknowledged some disparaging remarks but minimized their significance, and opposed changing possession or support.
Trial court found inability to co‑parent and hostility significant, modified to a standard possession order, ordered Father to pay $1,710/month child support, and added right of first refusal and communication protections; Father appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a material and substantial change warranting modification of possession from alternating weeks to a standard possession order	Mother: child’s school‑day travel schedule and resulting focus/mood problems + inability to co‑parent support change; modification is in child’s best interest	Father: no material change since original order (same residences, school, exchanges); child adjusted; age alone insufficient	Court: Affirmed — evidence of travel effects, child’s schooling/age, and significant co‑parenting hostility constituted a material and substantial change and supported best‑interest finding
Whether child support could be imposed following modification	Mother: changed possession reduces Father’s direct care time and justifies reallocation of financial support	Father: no material change to justify altering child support exemption from original shared‑possession order	Court: Affirmed — modification of possession constituted a material change permitting imposition of support given changed custodial arrangement
Whether trial court’s failure to file requested findings of fact and conclusions of law requires remand	Father: absence of findings impairs appellate review; requests abatement/remand if necessary	Mother: record and briefing make the trial court’s grounds apparent; no guessing required	Court: Affirmed — although failure to file is error, appellant showed no harm and appellate record sufficed to evaluate issues; no remand required

Key Cases Cited

Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (best‑interest standard governs conservatorship and possession decisions)
In re M.A.M., 346 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for modification of custody/possession)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re C.H.C., 392 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (discussing when change in child’s circumstances warrants modification)
Agraz v. Carnley, 143 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (some evidence of substantial and probative character suffices to avoid abuse of discretion)
In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (fact‑specific analysis for changed circumstances when child ages)
Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. 1989) (presumption of harm where trial court fails to file requested findings)
Labowitz v. Labowitz, 542 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1976) (change in custody can be a material change justifying reallocation of financial obligations)
In re Z.B.P., 109 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (custodial changes affecting who furnishes child care/services can support modification of support)
Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (clarifying standards in family‑law modifications)
In re A.E.A., 406 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (derogatory communications between parents are inconsistent with good co‑parenting)
In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (changed‑circumstances analysis compares conditions at original order and at modification)
Larry F. Smith, Inc. v. The Weber Co., 110 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (appellant harmed if forced to guess reason for adverse ruling when findings are missing)