Background - Divorce decree (Apr 29, 2016) made parents joint managing conservators of minor L.S.; it did not address international travel or passport issuance. - Karanja moved to modify the decree to allow L.S. to travel to Kenya (her birth country) to attend the grandfather’s memorial and requested permission to obtain/hold L.S.’s passport. - Smith opposed, asserting a risk of international abduction (Kenya not a Hague signatory) and asked the court to deny international travel or impose strict abduction-prevention measures under Tex. Fam. Code §§153.501–.503. - After an evidentiary hearing (reporter’s record not provided on appeal), the trial court granted the modification: allowed either parent to apply for passport, gave Karanja possession of the passport, required notices, and imposed a $75,000 bond plus embassy/State Department notifications as protective measures. - On appeal (pro se), Smith argued the trial court abused its discretion because (1) no material and substantial change in circumstances justified modification, (2) the modification was not in the child’s best interest, and (3) inadequate abduction-prevention measures were imposed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Karanja) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Whether a material and substantial change occurred to justify modifying international-travel terms | Granting passport/travel rights is not a material/substantial change; travel to Kenya was anticipated and not new | Need to renew passport and attend grandfather’s memorial constitutes a substantial change and is in child’s best interest | Reversed: court abused discretion — the asserted change (family visit/memorial) was anticipated; broad travel authorization unsupported | | Whether modification was in child’s best interest | Not argued separately given threshold challenge; contends court’s conclusion lacked lawful basis | Modification promotes child’s relationship with maternal family | Court did not reach separate best-interest analysis after finding error on change-of-circumstances | | Whether trial court correctly tied relief to changed circumstance | Smith: relief (unrestricted passport/possession) not limited to memorial trip and thus unrelated to any narrow change | Karanja: protective conditions and notice requirements limited risk | Court: relief was overbroad and not sufficiently connected to the asserted change; therefore arbitrary | | Whether record omission (no reporter’s record) precludes appellate review | Smith failed to include reporter’s record but raised legal challenges that can be reviewed | Karanja relied on presumption evidence supports findings | Court: must presume evidence supports findings, but may decide pure legal issues; did so and found legal error | ### Key Cases Cited Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (trial court given wide latitude in determining children’s best interests) Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (abuse of discretion occurs when action is arbitrary or without guiding rules) Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2011) (trial court abuses discretion by misapplying law to facts) In re K.J.M., 138 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (change envisioned at time of prior order is not a material and substantial change) * Stamper v. Knox, 254 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (hybrid sufficiency/abuse-of-discretion review in family-law modifications)