In the INTEREST OF N.P.M., a Child, 509 S.W.3d 560

Roy Murillo and Maria Soltero are joint parents of N.P.M. (b. 2010); Roy filed to be sole managing conservator in 2011; final hearing occurred in 2015.
Trial court appointed both as joint managing conservators but granted Maria exclusive rights for primary residence, education, and medical decisions.
The court issued a custom possession schedule for Roy that reduced weekends, spring break, summer, and eliminated holiday/Father’s Day visits.
The court found evidence Roy had a pattern of family violence and child neglect: arrests for assault (including an assault on a child), CPS interventions, a stepchild injured by a falling door after Roy kicked it, and reports that N.P.M. returned from visits unclean.
Roy requested findings; the court explained the deviations from the statutory Standard Possession Order as based on family violence, neglect, and parenting deficiencies.
Roy appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by deviating from the standard possession order without showing it was unworkable or inappropriate; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the Standard Possession Order (SPO)	Roy: No evidence justified deviating from SPO; deviations were arbitrary.	Trial court: Credible evidence of family violence, child neglect, and parenting failures rebutted presumption that SPO was appropriate.	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; evidence rebutted SPO presumption and supported custom order.

In re Marriage of Swim, 291 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2009) (trial court has broad discretion in custody/possession orders)
In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2000) (standard for appellate review of custody decisions)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (trial court discretion in custody decrees)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In Interest of Doe, 917 S.W.2d 139 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1996) (custody review standards)
In re C.R.T., 61 S.W.3d 62 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001) (reversal only for lack of factual or legal basis)
Gray v. Gray, 971 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1998) (presumption that SPO is in child’s best interest can be rebutted)
Ohendalski v. Ohendalski, 203 S.W.3d 910 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2006) (family violence supports deviation from SPO)
Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. App. Dallas 2004) (affirming deviation from SPO on child-safety grounds)
In re Walters, 39 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2001) (parental alcoholism justified limiting possession)
Coleman v. Coleman, 109 S.W.3d 108 (Tex. App. Austin 2003) (trial court credibility findings afforded deference)
Minjarez v. Minjarez, 495 S.W.2d 630 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1973) (presumption resolving conflicts in favor of factfinder)