Children, Divorces, Mediations . . . Oh My!

FOURTH COURT UPDATE

By Justice Lori I. Valenzuela and Austin Reyna

Texas appellate courts have the duty and honor of reviewing family law decisions ranging from the parentchild relationship and the parental presumption to the classification of property in divorce proceedings. The importance of advocates continuing to be apprised of recent family law jurisprudence cannot be overstated. While we are unable to address every recent change and trend in this article, below are a few cases you may find applicable in your practice—or at least of general interest.

Fourth Court of Appeals Cases

In re J.N.M., 672 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2023, pet. denied)

Mother and Stepfather began cohabitating when Mother was pregnant with a child from a previous relationship.1 Although he was not the child’s biological father, Stepfather treated the child as his own. Mother filed a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (“SAPCR”) to prevent the child’s biological father from possession and access.2 Mother subsequently asked Stepfather to watch the child after she was admitted to the hospital.3 Mother died shortly thereafter due to COVID complications.4 Stepfather intervened in the previous SAPCR to be appointed the child’s sole managing conservator.5 The child’s maternal grandparents also intervened and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Stepfather did not have standing to intervene in the original SAPCR, and the trial court granted the plea.6 We reversed, holding Stepfather had maintained actual care, custody, and control of the child for the requisite statutory period to obtain standing.7 Because Stepfather was entitled to, but could not, participate in the merits, we determined his exclusion resulted in a due process violation and remanded for further proceedings in which Stepfather could participate.

In re Barrett, No. 04-23-00928-CV, 2023 WL 8793150 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 20, 2023, orig. proceeding)(mem. op.)

In this original proceeding arising out of a modification suit, Father argued the trial court erred by failing to enter judgment on the parties’ mediated settlement agreement (“MSA”).8 Mother asserted the trial court was not obligated to enter judgment because Father had either breached the MSA or had committed family violence against a party to the MSA—one of the parties’ children.9 We reversed the trial court, holding the MSA met all statutory requirements to be binding, and the exceptions to rendering judgment on an MSA did not apply.10

In re Muldoon, 679 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 2023, orig. proceeding)

The issue in this original proceeding was whether the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) required the trial court to provide the parties with an opportunity to be heard before determining jurisdiction.11 In the underlying case, the Texas trial court held a conference with the Virginia trial court and made a jurisdictional determination without providing the parties an opportunity to present factual and legal arguments.12 Finding this to be a misapplication of the law, we conditionally granted mandamus relief.13

DeSpain v. DeSpain, 672 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2023, no pet.)

Husband’s Mother lived with Husband and Wife.14 Wife helped care for Mother “by taking her to doctor appointments, providing companionship, preparing meals, and providing other household assistance.”15 During their marriage, Husband and Mother were signatories on a bank account—funded only by Mother—that was used to buy land, build a house, and make other improvements that Husband, Wife, and Mother enjoyed.16 After Mother’s death, Husband and Wife began divorce proceedings.17 The trial court found the funds used for the land and improvements were either a gift to Husband and Wife or a gift given one-half to each and not a part of the community estate.18 We affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support a presumption that Mother gifted the purchase funds solely to Husband.19 We held that Mother making Husband a signatory on the bank account was insufficient alone to prove donative intent.20 The trial court correctly determined that the land was properly characterized as a 50% undivided, separate property interest owned by Husband and a 50% undivided, separate property interest owned by Wife.21

Cases From Other Texas Appellate Courts

In re J.N., 670 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. 2023).

In this divorce proceeding, Mother withdrew her jury demand for the purpose of invoking the trial court’s statutory obligation to interview her thirteen-year-old daughter regarding the child’s preference for primary residency.22 The trial court denied Mother’s request because she did not file a written motion and proceeded to conduct a bench trial because Mother had withdrawn her jury demand.23 The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed.24 The Supreme Court of Texas reversed in part, holding: (1) the trial court had a statutory obligation to conduct an interview with a child when properly invoked; (2) a written motion is not required by the statute; (3) such error was subject to harm analysis; and (4) the trial court’s error was harmful because it resulted in the Mother’s loss of a jury trial.25

Gardner v. McKenney, No. 03-21-00130CV, 2023 WL 1998902 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 15, 2023, no pet.)(mem. op.).

When the children were in Mother’s possession, Father rented out their rooms on Airbnb. In this direct appeal from an order modifying the parent-child relationship, Father asserted the trial court erred by enjoining him from renting out the children’s rooms during periods of Father’s non-possession.26 On appeal, the Third Court of Appeals held the trial court acted within its discretion and affirmed. The court reasoned that because there were no findings of fact or conclusions of law, it must defer to the trial court for demeanor and credibility determinations.27

Chintam v. Chintam, No. 05-22-00022-CV, 2023 WL 5345829 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 21, 2023, no pet.)(mem. op.).

Wife and Husband divided their community assets pursuant to an MSA that was finalized into a divorce decree.28 Subsequently, Wife initiated suit against Husband to divide property she alleged he did not disclose during the parties’ mediation.29 Affirming the trial court’s order on other grounds, the Fifth Court of Appeals held the trial court erred in allowing Husband’s counsel to testify regarding what transpired during the confidential mediation process. However, the court also held documents shared during mediation could be considered by the trial court if the documents were admissible independently of the mediation process.30

Justice Lori I. Valenzuela has been on the Fourth Court of Appeals since 2021. From 2009 to 2021, she presided over the 437th District Court. Prior to her tenure on the bench, Justice Valenzuela served as a Bexar County Assistant District Attorney, established a law practice concentrating on criminal defense, and worked as a county magistrate. Justice Valenzuela is an adjunct professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Justice Valenzuela received her Bachelor of Arts in Government from the University of Texas at Austin and her Juris Doctor degree from St. Mary’s University School of Law.

Austin Reyna has been a staff attorney at the Fourth Court of Appeals since March 2022. Prior to the Fourth Court of Appeals, Austin practiced complex civil litigation.