in the Interest of J.M.L.P. and M.D.A.P., Children
06-15-00043-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 25, 2015Background
- Parents Martin (father, incarcerated) and Carrie (mother) were joint managing conservators of two children after divorce; children lived with Carrie after Martin's 2013 felony conviction and long prison sentence.
- Attorney General’s Child Support Division filed a notice of change of status and motion to modify conservatorship in August 2014.
- An associate judge held a March 3, 2015 hearing (Martin was not present) and entered temporary orders naming Carrie managing conservator and Martin possessory conservator with no visitation; matter set for trial May 5, 2015.
- Martin (pro se inmate) filed motions April 28, 2015 requesting appointment of counsel ad litem, continuance, telephonic/video appearance, and declared inability to pay; the trial court did not rule on those motions and proceeded to a May 5 final trial in Martin’s absence.
- The trial court entered a final modification naming Carrie managing conservator and Martin possessory conservator without visitation rights; Martin appealed arguing (1) no notice of the temporary hearing and (2) the court erred by denying his telephonic/video appearance.
Issues
| Issue | Martin's Argument | Opposing Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by holding the temporary hearing and entering temporary orders without giving Martin notice | Martin contends he lacked notice of the temporary hearing and the temporary orders were improperly entered | Respondents point out the final order supersedes temporary orders and Martin did not properly challenge service; temporary-order complaint is moot once a final order is entered | Court: Complaint about the temporary hearing is moot after final judgment and not subject to appellate review; point dismissed |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Martin’s motion to appear telephonically or by video at final hearing | Martin argued his absence prejudiced him and requested telephonic/video attendance to testify for the children | Trial court implicitly denied the motion; respondents note Martin failed to supply necessary details (availability of tech, contacts, admissible testimony), and his brief offered only conclusory/termination-related authority | Court: Martin waived the appellate complaint by failing to brief it with authority; alternatively, no abuse of discretion—Martin didn’t show availability of conferencing, material noncumulative testimony, or substantial probability of success |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (discusses standards for evaluating child-custody evidence and procedural issues)
- In re K.R., 63 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2001) (addresses shackling and procedural protections in parental-rights proceedings)
- Z.L.T. v. State, 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (sets factors for evaluating inmate requests to attend proceedings or obtain bench warrants)
- Ringer v. Kimball, 274 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (addresses inmate requests for telephonic/video attendance and burdens to show availability)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (explains that inmates retain access-to-courts rights but not absolute rights to appear in person)