Michael Warren v. Krystal Charlene Ulatoski, 03-15-00380-CV

Parents divorced in 2008; decree named them joint managing conservators and gave Michael Warren the right to designate their daughter B.W.’s primary residence without geographic restriction.
The parties and child lived in California after the divorce; a November 2011 modification addressed travel arrangements but left residence-designation with Warren.
Ulatoski (mother) later remarried to an active-duty servicemember and relocated to Louisiana; Warren and B.W. subsequently lived in Killeen, then moved back to California by December 2014.
In August 2014 Ulatoski filed to modify conservatorship, alleging (inter alia) an investigation into Warren for sexual assault of his then-paramour’s child and seeking the right to designate B.W.’s primary residence.
A March 2015 final hearing was held; the trial court granted Ulatoski the right to designate the child’s primary residence (while leaving B.W. with Warren to finish the school year) and found a material and substantial change had occurred.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the evidence was legally insufficient to show a material and substantial change in circumstances since the 2011 order and rendered judgment denying the modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ulatoski)	Defendant's Argument (Warren)	Held
Whether petitioner proved a material and substantial change in circumstances since the prior (2011) order	The CPS/police investigation into allegations against Warren (and related safety concerns) and moves/supporting facts constituted a material and substantial change	No materially changed circumstances since 2011: moves were anticipated/insufficient, child well-adjusted in California, investigations were unfounded	Reversed — evidence legally insufficient to show material and substantial change since 2011; burden not met by Ulatoski
Whether modification was in the child’s best interest	Granting mother right to designate primary residence would protect child’s safety and welfare	Child’s stability, school, extended family, siblings, and established bond with Warren support denying change	Not reached on merits after reversal on change-of-circumstances ground (court found insufficient evidence of change)

Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (moving party bears burden to prove material and substantial change; appellate standard for abuse of discretion)
Considine v. Considine, 726 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987) (effect of prior modification order on res judicata and relevance of earlier findings)
In re T.W.E., 217 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006) (comparison point for changed circumstances is the last conservatorship-related order)
Bates v. Tesar, 81 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002) (factors for assessing whether relocation is material and substantial)
In re H.N.T., 367 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (relocation may not be material where prior conditions show residence at both times)
In re P.M.G., 405 S.W.3d 406 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (factors to consider when determining whether a move materially impacts conservatorship relationship)
Child v. Leverton, 210 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006) (stability is a significant consideration in custody/conservatorship decisions)