in the Matter of the Marriage of Ephraim Karsagi and Alyssa Lyn Karsagi and in the Interest of E.B.K. and A.Y.K., Children, 13-20-00077-CV

Ephraim and Alyssa Karsagi divorced after separation; they have two children born 2015 and 2017. Ephraim filed for divorce and originally sought joint managing conservatorship; Alyssa sought sole managing conservatorship.
A court‑ordered custody evaluation by Dr. Kim Arredondo concluded Ephraim was the parent best able to meet the children’s needs, diagnosed Alyssa with personality/factitious disorders, and recommended supervised visitation for Alyssa.
Temporary orders initially restricted Alyssa’s possession after findings of parental alienation; later modified to limited supervised visits. The parties agreed conservatorship would be decided by a jury; Alyssa timely demanded a jury trial.
After a seven‑day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict appointing Ephraim sole managing conservator and found Alyssa committed cruel treatment; the trial court entered a final decree incorporating the verdict and ordered Alyssa to have limited supervised visitation.
Alyssa appealed, arguing (1) the judgment was void because Ephraim never pleaded for sole managing conservatorship and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the standard possession order based on findings unsupported by the evidence (notably alleged risk of international abduction and medical child abuse).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Alyssa)	Defendant's Argument (Ephraim)	Held
Whether appointment of Ephraim as sole managing conservator was void because he did not plead for that relief	Judgment is void for lack of pleading authorizing sole managing conservatorship	Issue was tried by consent / waived—parties developed the issue at trial, the jury charge allowed naming one parent sole conservator, and Alyssa failed to object	Court held the issue was tried by consent and/or waived; verdict and decree stand (affirmed)
Whether trial court abused its discretion by deviating from the standard possession order	Deviation was unsupported by evidence—findings (risk of international abduction; medical child abuse) lack evidentiary support	Trial court had credible evidence (flight‑risk indicators, planning activity, limited ties to U.S., supervised‑visit reports, evaluator testimony) to justify deviation and supervised visits	Court held the deviation was supported by sufficient evidence (not an abuse of discretion) and affirmed

Messier v. Messier, 389 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (technical pleading rules reduced in child‑custody cases)
Leithold v. Plass, 413 S.W.2d 698 (Tex. 1967) (court’s equitable duty to dispose of custody matters once child is before the court)
In re A.B.H., 266 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (trial‑by‑consent doctrine requires clear record showing the parties tried the unpled issue)
Ingram v. Deere, 288 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2009) (issue developed at trial and submitted without objection is treated as tried by consent)
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002) (when conservatorship is decided by jury, the court may not contravene the jury verdict)
Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility determinations and must view evidence in light favorable to verdict)
In re Sigmar, 270 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (framework for determining credible evidence of international abduction risk and permissible preventive measures)