COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-113-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.W ., A MINOR CHILD
------------
FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF W ICHITA COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
This is a child custody case. In one issue, appellant Mary, the biological
mother of Cassandra, 2 argues that the trial court erred by failing to “give proper
weight” to the parental presumption codified in family code section 153.131(a) when
it ordered that Cassandra’s paternal grandparents be designated joint managing
conservators with the exclusive right to designate her primary residence. W e will
affirm.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b)(2), we are using aliases for the names of the child and the parents involved in this case. Cassandra’s alleged biological father, Frank, filed an original suit affecting the
parent-child relationship in October 2003. At that time, Cassandra was roughly six
months old. After numerous continuances and attempts at mediation, the trial court
issued an order in May 2005 adjudicating Frank as Cassandra’s father and
appointing Frank and Mary as joint managing conservators. The trial court also
ordered that Frank have the exclusive right to designate Cassandra’s primary
residence without regard to geographic location.
From the date of that order until February 2007, Cassandra lived with Frank
and his parents. At that time, and because of a “falling out” between Frank and the
grandparents, Frank moved out of his parents’ house, taking Cassandra with him.
Meanwhile, in October 2006, Mary had filed a petition requesting that she be
appointed as conservator with the exclusive right to designate Cassandra’s primary
residence. After Frank moved out, Cassandra’s paternal grandparents filed a
petition to intervene in March 2007, seeking to be designated sole managing
conservators of Cassandra. In their petition, the grandparents claimed that both
Frank and Mary were detrimental to Cassandra’s physical and emotional
development. After a series of hearings, in January 2009, the trial court designated
Cassandra’s paternal grandparents joint managing conservators with the exclusive
right to designate Cassandra’s primary residence as well as the exclusive right to
make her medical decisions. The trial court also ordered the grandparents to provide
Cassandra with health care. Additionally, the trial court designated Frank and Mary
2 as joint managing conservators and further ordered that both were to pay child
support. Furthermore, the trial court issued a modified standard possession order
whereby Mary is allowed possession of Cassandra on weekends, certain week
nights, and specific holidays. This appeal followed.
In her sole issue, Mary argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
“failing to give proper weight to the ‘parental presumption’ found” in the family code
when it designated Cassandra’s paternal grandparents as joint managing
conservators with the exclusive right to designate her primary residence. Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 153.131(a) (Vernon 2008). W e disagree.
W e review a trial court’s order modifying conservatorship under an abuse of
discretion standard. In re T.D.C., 91 S.W .3d 865, 872 (Tex. App.—Fort W orth 2002,
pet. denied); see Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W .2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). The trial
court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily and unreasonably or without reference
to any guiding principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W .2d 238,
241–42 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 (1986).
The presumption that the best interest of the child is served by awarding
custody to the parent is deeply embedded in Texas law. See Lewelling v. Lewelling,
796 S.W .2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1990) (citing Mumma v. Aguirre, 364 S.W .2d 220, 221
(Tex. 1963) and Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W . 281, 282 (1894)). The
parental presumption is based upon the natural affection usually flowing between
parent and child. See Taylor v. Meek, 154 Tex. 305, 276 S.W .2d 787, 790 (1955).
3 The Texas Legislature codified this presumption in Chapter 153 of the family code,
which governs original custody determinations:
[U]nless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child.
Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131(a).
Thus, under Chapter 153, a nonparent seeking custody can rebut the parental
presumption by showing that the appointment of the parent would significantly impair
the child’s health or development. See In re V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d 338, 341 (Tex.
2000); see also Brook v. Brook, 881 S.W .2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1994). Chapter 153 also
provides that the parental presumption is rebutted if the parent has “voluntarily
relinquished actual care, control, and possession of the child to a nonparent” for one
year or more and the appointment of a nonparent as managing conservator is in the
best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.373 (Vernon 2008). A court’s
primary consideration in any conservatorship case “shall always be the best interest
of the child.” Id. § 153.002.
After a court makes an original custody determination, a party may move to
modify that determination. See id. § 156.002 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Section 156.101
provides the grounds for modifying conservatorship:
(a) The court may modify an order that provides for the appointment of a conservator of a child, that provides the terms and conditions of
4 conservatorship, or that provides for the possession of or access to a child if modification would be in the best interest of the child and:
(1) the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or other party affected by the order have materially and substantially changed since the earlier of:
(A) the date of the rendition of the order; or
(B) the date of the signing of a mediated or collaborative law settlement agreement on which the order is based;
(2) the child is at least 12 years of age and has expressed to the court in chambers as provided by Section 153.009 the name of the person who is the child’s preference to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; or
(3) the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child has voluntarily relinquished the primary care and possession of the child to another person for at least six months.
Id. § 156.101(a).
Our supreme court has noted that Chapter 153 and Chapter 156 are distinct
statutory schemes that involve different issues. In re V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d at 343. And
the standard and burden of proof are different in original and modification suits.
Compare Tex. Fam. Code § 153.134 with Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. A parent has
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2-09-113-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.W ., A MINOR CHILD
------------
FROM THE 30TH DISTRICT COURT OF W ICHITA COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
This is a child custody case. In one issue, appellant Mary, the biological
mother of Cassandra, 2 argues that the trial court erred by failing to “give proper
weight” to the parental presumption codified in family code section 153.131(a) when
it ordered that Cassandra’s paternal grandparents be designated joint managing
conservators with the exclusive right to designate her primary residence. W e will
affirm.
1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.8(b)(2), we are using aliases for the names of the child and the parents involved in this case. Cassandra’s alleged biological father, Frank, filed an original suit affecting the
parent-child relationship in October 2003. At that time, Cassandra was roughly six
months old. After numerous continuances and attempts at mediation, the trial court
issued an order in May 2005 adjudicating Frank as Cassandra’s father and
appointing Frank and Mary as joint managing conservators. The trial court also
ordered that Frank have the exclusive right to designate Cassandra’s primary
residence without regard to geographic location.
From the date of that order until February 2007, Cassandra lived with Frank
and his parents. At that time, and because of a “falling out” between Frank and the
grandparents, Frank moved out of his parents’ house, taking Cassandra with him.
Meanwhile, in October 2006, Mary had filed a petition requesting that she be
appointed as conservator with the exclusive right to designate Cassandra’s primary
residence. After Frank moved out, Cassandra’s paternal grandparents filed a
petition to intervene in March 2007, seeking to be designated sole managing
conservators of Cassandra. In their petition, the grandparents claimed that both
Frank and Mary were detrimental to Cassandra’s physical and emotional
development. After a series of hearings, in January 2009, the trial court designated
Cassandra’s paternal grandparents joint managing conservators with the exclusive
right to designate Cassandra’s primary residence as well as the exclusive right to
make her medical decisions. The trial court also ordered the grandparents to provide
Cassandra with health care. Additionally, the trial court designated Frank and Mary
2 as joint managing conservators and further ordered that both were to pay child
support. Furthermore, the trial court issued a modified standard possession order
whereby Mary is allowed possession of Cassandra on weekends, certain week
nights, and specific holidays. This appeal followed.
In her sole issue, Mary argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
“failing to give proper weight to the ‘parental presumption’ found” in the family code
when it designated Cassandra’s paternal grandparents as joint managing
conservators with the exclusive right to designate her primary residence. Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. § 153.131(a) (Vernon 2008). W e disagree.
W e review a trial court’s order modifying conservatorship under an abuse of
discretion standard. In re T.D.C., 91 S.W .3d 865, 872 (Tex. App.—Fort W orth 2002,
pet. denied); see Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W .2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). The trial
court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily and unreasonably or without reference
to any guiding principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W .2d 238,
241–42 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159 (1986).
The presumption that the best interest of the child is served by awarding
custody to the parent is deeply embedded in Texas law. See Lewelling v. Lewelling,
796 S.W .2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1990) (citing Mumma v. Aguirre, 364 S.W .2d 220, 221
(Tex. 1963) and Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W . 281, 282 (1894)). The
parental presumption is based upon the natural affection usually flowing between
parent and child. See Taylor v. Meek, 154 Tex. 305, 276 S.W .2d 787, 790 (1955).
3 The Texas Legislature codified this presumption in Chapter 153 of the family code,
which governs original custody determinations:
[U]nless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child.
Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131(a).
Thus, under Chapter 153, a nonparent seeking custody can rebut the parental
presumption by showing that the appointment of the parent would significantly impair
the child’s health or development. See In re V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d 338, 341 (Tex.
2000); see also Brook v. Brook, 881 S.W .2d 297, 298 (Tex. 1994). Chapter 153 also
provides that the parental presumption is rebutted if the parent has “voluntarily
relinquished actual care, control, and possession of the child to a nonparent” for one
year or more and the appointment of a nonparent as managing conservator is in the
best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code § 153.373 (Vernon 2008). A court’s
primary consideration in any conservatorship case “shall always be the best interest
of the child.” Id. § 153.002.
After a court makes an original custody determination, a party may move to
modify that determination. See id. § 156.002 (Vernon Supp. 2009). Section 156.101
provides the grounds for modifying conservatorship:
(a) The court may modify an order that provides for the appointment of a conservator of a child, that provides the terms and conditions of
4 conservatorship, or that provides for the possession of or access to a child if modification would be in the best interest of the child and:
(1) the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or other party affected by the order have materially and substantially changed since the earlier of:
(A) the date of the rendition of the order; or
(B) the date of the signing of a mediated or collaborative law settlement agreement on which the order is based;
(2) the child is at least 12 years of age and has expressed to the court in chambers as provided by Section 153.009 the name of the person who is the child’s preference to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; or
(3) the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child has voluntarily relinquished the primary care and possession of the child to another person for at least six months.
Id. § 156.101(a).
Our supreme court has noted that Chapter 153 and Chapter 156 are distinct
statutory schemes that involve different issues. In re V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d at 343. And
the standard and burden of proof are different in original and modification suits.
Compare Tex. Fam. Code § 153.134 with Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101. A parent has
the benefit of the parental presumption in an original proceeding, and the nonparent
seeking conservatorship has a higher burden. See In re V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d at 343;
see also Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131 (Vernon 2008). But a parent does not have the
benefit of the parental presumption in a modification proceeding, nor does the
nonparent have as high a burden. See V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d at 343; see also In re
5 M.N.G., 113 S.W .3d 27, 35 (Tex. App.—Fort W orth 2003, no pet.) (rejecting
argument that when modification proceedings pit parent against nonparent, the
parental presumption applies).
In the modification context, the State has a compelling interest in protecting
the child’s need for stability and in preventing constant litigation in child custody
cases. In re M.N.G., 113 S.W .3d at 36; Hogge v. Kimbrow, 631 S.W .2d 603,
604–05 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1982, no writ). Because a change in custody usually
disrupts the child’s living arrangements and the channels of a child’s affection, and
in effect alters the entire tenor of the child’s life, a change should be ordered only
when the trial court is convinced that a change is to be a positive improvement for
the child. V.L.K., 24 S.W .3d at 343; Taylor, 276 S.W .2d at 790.
W ith this statutory structure in mind, we conclude and hold that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by not applying the parental presumption in this
modification suit. Simply put, the parental presumption does not apply. See In re
M.N.G., 113 S.W .3d at 36. Thus, we overrule Mary’s sole issue and affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
BILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: April 15, 2010