in the Interest of K.M., a Child, 401 S.W.3d 864

In 2005, the trial court appointed Mary Contreras and Michael Morrow as joint managing conservators of K.M.
In April 2011, Anselmo Contreras, Jr. filed a petition in Montgomery County to modify the parent-child order; case was transferred to Brazoria County.
Anselmo attached Michael’s signed affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights to the amended petition.
The trial court held a hearing at which Mary did not appear; a July 10, 2012 default order granted modification and removed Mary and Michael as JMCs, appointing Anselmo sole managing conservator and Mary as possessory conservator with supervised visitation.
Mary filed a restricted appeal asserting no affirmative showing of service and challenging the evidentiary support for the modification.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that there was no affirmative showing Mary was duly served, and that the appellate record did not contain a return of service; the record did show service only via the default judgment recitals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mary was duly served with process	Mary	Anselmo contends service was effected	Error is apparent; no affirmative showing of service in the record; reverse and remand

Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (restricted-appeal lack of service presumptions; need affirmative service showing)
Harvestons Sec., Inc. v. Narnia Invs., Ltd., 218 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (absence of service evidence negates judgment in restricted appeal)
DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffitt, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1991) (record must include affirmative service showing in restricted appeal)
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (remedy on insufficiency is reversal and remand, not render)
Wilson v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (addressing sufficiency arguments in restricted-appeal context)