in the Interest of G.D.H., a Child
366 S.W.3d 766
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Hook appeals a trial court order directing him to sign a consent form allowing his minor son to travel to Israel with Hill; the order followed Hill's enforcement motion after she sought to travel abroad with G.D.H.
- The April 30, 2010 order titled 'Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship' included a provision that both parents consent to travel and to execute forms required for travel.
- The order required written notice including a consent form and details of travel, with provisions to attach a model form and to deliver forms within ten days of receipt.
- After Hill notified Hook of the Israel trip and provided a consent form, Hook refused to sign, prompting the hearing.
- The trial court found Hill substantially complied with notice provisions, and ordered Hook to sign the form and pay Hill’s fees and costs.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the contract-like order should be construed as a contract and that the trial court reasonably applied substantial compliance to fulfill the order’s purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consent form was of the type required for travel | Hook | Hook contends Hill failed to prove the form was government/third-party required | No error; form could fulfill the order's broad intent. |
| Whether the missing attached form invalidates the order | Hook | Court may supply or imply missing terms to effect the contract | No error; court can imply/complete terms consistent with intent. |
| Whether Hook's signing duty was triggered given Hill's notice deficiencies | Hook | Duty vested upon substantial compliance with notice | No error; substantial compliance supported the court’s order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bishop v. Bishop, 74 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (contract interpretation governs agreed orders about parental obligations)
- Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Renaissance Women’s Group, P.A., 121 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (courts may imply duties to effect contracts)
- In re Doe, 917 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1996) (substantial compliance doctrine applied in family law)
- Hicks v. Castillo, 313 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010) (interpretation of written contracts in family matters)
- Cross Timbers Oil Co. v. Exxon Corp., 22 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000) (construe writing as a whole; give substance to each word)