in the Interest of L.C.L, a Minor Child
396 S.W.3d 712
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- M.L. and P.L. are divorced; they were joint managing conservators of L.C.L. in 2009.
- P.L. sought to modify and obtain sole managing conservatorship of L.C.L.; emergency motion sought suspension of M.L.'s visitation.
- Trial court found a history or pattern of family violence by M.L. toward L.C.L. during the two years prior to filing/pendency.
- P.L. was appointed sole managing conservator; M.L. was named possessory conservator.
- M.L.’s periods of possession/access were ordered to be supervised by a professional supervisor.
- The order was challenged on grounds that evidence from prior hearings was considered without proper admissibility and that the findings were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court’s ruling based on evidence from prior hearings not admitted at trial? | ML contends the court relied on prior-hearings evidence not admitted. | PL argues the court may notice the file and comments were not objected to; no abuse. | No error; court did not rely on undisclosed prior-hearing evidence. |
| Is there legally sufficient evidence of a history or pattern of family violence? | ML claims no evidence of violence; acts were disciplinary. | PL relies on professional witnesses corroborating fear and violence. | Yes, sufficient evidence of history/pattern of family violence. |
| Was there a material and substantial change in circumstances justifying modification to sole managing conservator? | ML argues no material change; presumption of joint management. | PL shows changed circumstances and admission of that element. | Yes, sufficient change; appointment of PL as sole managing conservator proper. |
| Is the appointment of PL as sole managing conservator supported by law despite presumption for joint managing conservators? | Statutory presumption favors joint conservators. | History of family violence prohibits joint appointment; sole conservator proper. | Yes, not abused; history of violence forecloses joint appointment. |
| Was the supervised possession provision the least restrictive means and properly justified? | Supervision unnecessary; overbroad. | Experts recommended supervision for safety. | Yes, court did not abuse discretion; supervision upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.N.T., 367 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (abuse of discretion in family law, standard of review)
- In re W.C.B., 337 S.W.3d 510 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (evidence adequacy in abuse findings; review standard)
- In re ABP, 291 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (material/substantial change in circumstances; modification)
- Alexander v. Rogers, 247 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (history of abuse affecting conservatorship decisions)