in the Interest of L.G.H., a Child, 10-16-00018-CV

Hibbs and Hogue divorced in 2008; Hibbs was originally given the exclusive right to establish the child's domicile in Ellis County, but both had equal possession.
Both parties later sought modification to be named the parent with the right to establish the child’s domicile and to place the other parent on the Standard Possession Order; proceedings were acrimonious and protracted with temporary orders in 2011 and a final hearing in 2015.
After the final hearing, the trial court named Hogue the parent with the right to establish the child's domicile (limited to Ellis and contiguous counties), awarded Hibbs possession under the Standard Possession Order, and ordered Hibbs to pay child support to Hogue.
Hibbs appealed, raising (1) the trial court’s alleged failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, (2) insufficiency of evidence that a material and substantial change in circumstances occurred, and (3) that naming Hogue was not in the child's best interest (great-weight challenge).
The appellate court abated the appeal, the trial court later entered findings and conclusions, and Hibbs did not amend her brief in response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law	Hibbs argued she properly requested findings under Tex. R. Civ. P. 296 and none were entered	Hogue pointed out the court later entered findings when the appeal was abated	Moot — findings were entered after abatement; issue dismissed as moot
Sufficiency of evidence that modification was in child’s best interest	Hibbs contended the record did not show modification was in the child’s best interest or was against the great weight of the evidence	Hogue did not directly contest best-interest on appeal but procedural/default arguments applied; court noted Hibbs failed to brief/authority her best-interest challenge	Not considered on merits — inadequately briefed, presents nothing for review
Whether there was a material and substantial change in circumstances to permit modification	Hibbs argued there was insufficient evidence of a material change since the prior order	Hogue argued Hibbs’s pleadings requesting modification constituted a judicial admission of changed circumstances; trial testimony also supported change	Held against Hibbs — judicial admission (and testimony) preclude challenging sufficiency; appellate court overruled challenges and affirmed modification

In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000) (elements required to modify custody: changed circumstances and betterment for the child)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (appellate standard for reviewing custody modifications is abuse of discretion)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (abuse-of-discretion test: arbitrary, unreasonable, or without regard to legal principles)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (trial court does not abuse discretion if some evidence reasonably supports decision)
Holy Cross Church of God in Christ v. Wolf, 44 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2001) (pleaded assertions of fact can operate as judicial admissions)