Katy Shuk Chi Lau Messier v. Luc J. Messier
389 S.W.3d 904
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Messier and Lau Messier married in 1998 and have two minor children; neither are U.S. citizens, but reside in Houston.
- Luc J. Messier is a Canada-born husband; Katy Lau Messier is from Hong Kong.
- In 2009 Luc filed for divorce; Katy countersued; both sought sole managing conservatorship.
- Luc sought to determine risk of international abduction and to take protective measures.
- A jury named Luc sole managing conservator; the court imposed injunctions restricting Katy’s international travel, passports, possession, and communications.
- The court found no credible risk of international abduction but held travel-related injunctions in the children’s best interests; some provisions were dissolved on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleadings for travel injunctions | Messier argues pleadings did not support travel injunctions | Lau Messier contends pleadings sufficed given best interests and general relief prayers | Pleadings sufficiently supported the injunctions |
| Abuse of discretion and evidentiary support | Messier asserts evidence does not support the injunctions | Lau Messier asserts trial court properly protected best interests | Evidence supported some injunctions; court modified travel-related provisions; overall affirmed as modified |
| Permanent injunctions requirements in custody context | Messier argues traditional permanent-injunction criteria apply | Lau Messier contends traditional criteria not strictly required in custody cases | Traditional four-part test not strictly required; some provisions justified by best interests; certain travel-notice requirements dissolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best interests govern child custody determinations; relaxing strict pleading rules)
- Peck v. Peck, 172 S.W.3d 26 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005) (permanent injunctions in custody cases may be tied to best interests; pleadings need not expressly request every relief)
- In re Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2000) (best interests as primary consideration; supports flexibility in injunctions)
- In re N.A.S., 100 S.W.3d 670 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003) (deference to trial court in determining child-related dispositions)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995) (liberal construction of pleadings; claims must be reasonably inferred)
- Baltzer v. Medina, 240 S.W.3d 469 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (reviewing whether petition reasonably notifies claims; not all claims need explicit pleading)