in the Interest of K.A.M.S & K.A.S, Children, 583 S.W.3d 335

Mother filed a 2006 SAPCR; court adjudicated Father the parent of two children, ordered joint managing conservators, Mother as primary residence holder, and standard possession for Father with child support and medical support obligations.
A 2013 order modified child support to $440/month plus $60/month cash medical support and adjudicated arrearages.
In 2017 Mother filed a modification petition seeking sole managing conservatorship, increased child support, health-insurance premium payment by Father, modified possession (times by agreement), and attorney’s fees; Mother moved to compel discovery and obtained a $2,011.65 discovery-sanctions award against Father.
At a bench trial the court interviewed the children in camera, took judicial notice of the file, found a material and substantial change in circumstances, named Mother sole managing conservator, limited Father’s possession to times mutually agreed in advance, and increased child support to $650/month plus $132/month cash medical support (Mother to provide insurance).
The trial court found Father intentionally underemployed, calculated potential income, and deviated from guideline support; it awarded Mother $9,800 in attorney’s fees (including the $2,011.65 discovery award).
On appeal the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed all modifications except it reversed the attorney’s-fee award as legally insufficient and remanded solely for reconsideration of fees tied to the discovery-sanction claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conservatorship (joint → sole for Mother)	Mother: Father was largely absent; circumstances materially changed; sole managing conservator is in children’s best interest.	Father: Change not sufficiently demonstrated; trial court erred.	Affirmed — evidence (mother’s testimony, Father’s lack of contact) supported material and substantial change and best-interest finding.
Possession order (standard → by mutual agreement)	Mother: Father’s long absence and lack of involvement justify deviation for children’s best interest.	Father: Not enough basis to deviate; wants standard possession reinstated.	Affirmed — record supports restriction as minimal necessary to protect children; court may imply findings when not requested.
Child support increase ($440 → $650)	Mother: Changed circumstances, Mother as sole conservator, Father underemployed; guideline deviation justified by section 154.123 factors.	Father: No basis; challenges underemployment finding.	Affirmed — trial court reasonably found intentional underemployment and cited statutory factors to justify variance.
Attorney’s fees ($9,800)	Mother: Fees are reasonable and necessary and include discovery-sanction amount.	Father: Mother failed to prove reasonableness/necessity (no lodestar detail, no hours or rates, no billing records).	Reversed in part — fee award reversed as legally insufficient; remanded limited to discovery-sanction fee determination.

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (trial court has wide discretion over child custody and visitation)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) (standards for material and substantial change and modification)
Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1991) (legal-sufficiency review principles)
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (trial court discretion to award attorney’s fees in SAPCRs)
Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (no extra proof of motive required to find intentional underemployment in applying earning potential)
Taylor v. Meek, 276 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1955) (deference to trial court credibility and fact findings in bench trials)