Sylvia Yolanda Arredondo v. Antonio A. Betancourt, Jr., 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8487

Arredondo appeals a May 31, 2011 trial court modification granting Betancourt exclusive right to designate the child’s residence with a Harris County geographic restriction; the prior decree gave Sylvia exclusive right to designate residence.
Sylvia moved with the child to Mexico in November 2009 without prior notice to Betancourt and without arranging housing, schooling, or employment.
Betancourt petitioned to modify, seeking exclusive designation of residence and child-support provisions; he obtained a jury verdict supporting modification.
Trial court permanently enjoined Sylvia from traveling outside the continental United States without Betancourt’s written consent and denied return of the child’s passport; this injunction was later modified by the court.
Sylvia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for modification, the injunction, and the attorney’s-fees award; the court affirmed modified custody and dissolved the international-travel injunction, but sustained the injunction issue as modified and upheld the attorney’s-fees ruling as to the amicus.
Note: The opinion references standards for abuse-of-discretion review, suitability of relocation factors (Bates v. Tesar factors), and abduction-prevention measures under Texas Family Code sections 153.001, 153.501–153.503.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports modification to designate the child’s residence	Arredondo argues move to Mexico shows material change in circumstances	Betancourt contends relocation and related conduct justified modification	Yes; evidence legally sufficient to modify conservatorship as to residence
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the travel injunction	Injunction is overbroad and infringes constitutional right to travel	Injunction justified under 153.001 and 153.503 abduction-prevention measures	No; but the injunction is dissolved to the extent it prohibits Sylvia from traveling outside the continental United States (injunction narrowed)
Whether appellant preserved the attorney’s-fees issue for appeal	Antonio’s fees should have been jury-tried per Sylvia’s right	Trial court could decide fees; preservation lacking	Yes; the issue was not preserved for appeal, but the award would be upheld on the merits if reached

Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (abuse-of-discretion standard in family-law matters)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review and deference to fact-finder)
Bates v. Tesar, 81 S.W.3d 411 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002) (relocation relocation factors informing material change in circumstances)
In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (reaffirms sufficiency review and fact-finder credibility)
In re Sigmar, 270 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (abduction-prevention measures and travel controls considerations)
In re C.R.O., 96 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002) (domicile restrictions and travel implications in modification)