in the Interest of E.R.C., a Minor Child
496 S.W.3d 270
Tex. App.2016Background
- Suit to modify parent-child relationship over E.R.C. (born Dec. 25, 2009); bench trial in Travis County resulted in order naming Christopher Corsbie and Brandi Stokes joint managing conservators.
- Trial court granted Corsbie exclusive rights to designate primary residence and make medical/educational decisions, ordered Stokes to pay $350/month child support and $40,000 in Corsbie’s attorney fees.
- Stokes (a licensed attorney representing herself) appealed raising recusal/due-process and religious-liberty claims tied to trial judge assignment and the denial of her motion to recuse Judge Tim Sulak; she also challenged Travis County Local Rule 1.3, reappointment of the Domestic Relations Office (DRO) as guardian ad litem, and alleged cumulative error.
- Trial judge James Carroll denied Stokes’ motion to recuse Judge Sulak under Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b; Carroll’s denial is the principal procedural act challenged on appeal.
- Appellate court reviewed preservation and briefing defects, assessed Rule 18b recusal standards, reviewed discrete trial rulings (discovery order compelling psychiatric report, expert testimony/admission, guardian ad litem testimony), sufficiency of evidence for conservatorship/support, and reasonableness of attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stokes) | Defendant's Argument (Corsbie/Trial Ct.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of motion to recuse Judge Sulak under Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b; related due-process and religious-liberty claims | Denial violated due process and her religious liberty because judge was allegedly biased (pro‑LGBT, anti‑Christian) and impartiality could be reasonably questioned | Evidence showed only campaign endorsements from LGBT groups and ordinary rulings; no facts showing judge’s bias or deep‑seated antagonism; movant must meet high threshold; recusal decision committed to trial court discretion | Preservation partly failed for due‑process claim; religious‑liberty claim waived for inadequate briefing; on merits, no abuse of discretion — recusal denial affirmed |
| 2) Challenge to Travis County Local Rule 1.3 as violating due process (judge assignment / case shopping) | Local Rule 1.3 reduces judicial accountability and increases risk of bias / lacks notice about judge assignments | Stokes never objected at trial or in amended new‑trial motion on Rule 1.3; issue not preserved for appeal | Not preserved; appellate court declines review |
| 3) Reappointment of DRO as guardian ad litem and failure to remedy alleged DRO/employee misconduct (Cynthia Gonzalez) | Reappointment violated due process and court erred by not addressing alleged misconduct | Appointment was a temporary order authorized by Family Code; after entry of final order, complaints about temporary orders are moot | Moot after entry of final order; no reviewable error |
| 4) Cumulative error / discrete trial rulings: discovery order compelling psychiatric report; admission of experts and GAL testimony; sufficiency of evidence for conservatorship, primary‑residence/decision rights, child support, and attorney fees | Multiple trial errors cumulatively caused denial of due process; specific claims: late discovery order violated discovery deadlines; expert/GAL testimony and reports were inadmissible or unqualified; insufficient evidence for best‑interest findings; attorney‑fees award unreasonable | Discovery order justified (late disclosure of report); many objections not timely/specific (waived); bench found parents suitable for joint conservatorship and trial judge credited witnesses; unchallenged factual findings support fee award | Many complaints waived for lack of timely/specific objection or inadequate briefing; trial court did not abuse discretion on discovery, evidence admissibility, sufficiency, child support, or attorney‑fees; no reversible cumulative error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (preservation-of-error principle)
- Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (due-process challenges require preservation)
- In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003) (preservation rules apply to due-process claims)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial rulings alone rarely establish bias; movant must show deep‑seated favoritism or antagonism)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid bias basis)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)
- Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of recusal denials)