In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00219-CV __________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.C. __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-237,733 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Complaining the trial court abused its discretion in granting
Mother “the exclusive right to designate their son Blake’s primary
residence within Jefferson County, Texas, and contiguous counties, OR
Washington State,” Father appealed. 1 Based on the evidence the trial
court heard in the hearing it conducted in this suit affecting their parent-
child relationship (SAPCR) on Mother’s petition to resolve issues of
1We use pseudonyms to protect the minor’s identity. Tex. R. App. P.
9.8 (Protection of Minor’s Identity in Parental-Rights Termination Cases). 1 conservatorship, possession, and access, we conclude that Father has not
established an abuse of discretion occurred. For the reasons explained
below, we will affirm.
Background
The information we present in this section is based on Mother’s and
Father’s testimony from the hearing the trial court conducted on
Mother’s SAPCR. Mother and Father were the only witnesses who
testified during the hearing. According to Mother, Mother and Father
never married. The testimony shows that in 2018, Mother and Father
began a long-distance relationship while Mother was working as a
physician’s assistant in Dallas and Father was working at a refinery in
Southwest Louisiana while living in Beaumont.
In 2019 and before Blake was conceived, Mother’s relationship with
Father became more serious, and she decided to move closer to where
Father lived. Mother moved to Houston after finding a job at a cardiology
clinic there. After Mother began living in Houston, she became pregnant,
which according to Mother left her with two choices: (1) move to Seattle,
Washington, which is where she grew up so that her family could help
2 her when she had her baby; or (2) move to Beaumont, where Father lived
so that he could help her raise the child.
Mother chose to move to Beaumont, although she claimed that
Father told her he would support her decision if she chose to move to
Seattle if things didn’t work out. Mother bought a home in a new
subdivision, which was being developed in Beaumont. Father did not help
buy the home.
That November, Mother and Father moved into the home.
However, Mother couldn’t find work as a physician’s assistant in
Beaumont, so she continued to commute to Houston for work.
In March 2020, Blake was born. According to Mother, she returned
to work three months later. Mother explained that despite Father’s
promise to help her with the baby, to pay the household’s bills, and to
support her moving back to Washington should things not work out, none
of his promises turned out to be true. Because Mother and Father had
full-time jobs, Mother hired a nanny to care for Blake. Mother explained
that on occasion when she came come home from work, she found Father
playing video games while the nanny was taking care of Blake.
3 During the hearing, Mother explained why she wanted to raise
Blake in Washington. Her testimony focuses on the support structure she
claims is available to here there because her parents, family, and friends
live in that state. Mother added that were the court to expand her rights
to include designating Blake’s primary residence in the state of
Washington, it would be beneficial to Blake because he would have family
there to care for him while she was at work. According to Mother, another
benefit to Blake would be that she has an extensive network of friends in
Washington who have children around Blake’s age, children who are
available to play with Blake. According to Mother, she does not have a
similar network in Texas since other than Father, she has no other
friends.
Mother explained why having a support system available where a
member of her family could take care of Blake when she was at work or
he was sick would help her financially, explaining she wouldn’t be
required to hire a nanny so that she had to take time off from her job.
Mother added that missing work was difficult for her because her
occupation as a physician’s assistant required her to cancel her schedule
when she missed work. Mother pointed to several times that had occurred
4 in the past year, as Father wouldn’t take time off from his job to take care
of Blake.
Mother described the number of family members she has in
Washington, and she testified they were available and willing to help her
raise Blake. She also described the types of recreational opportunities
she enjoyed while a child growing up, and she told the trial court that
these were opportunities she wanted Blake to experience during his
childhood too.
Father’s testimony focused on his desire to have Blake available in
Beaumont or a surrounding county so that he could exercise his rights of
visitation. Currently, Father lives in Beaumont in a home that he leases
with his parents. Father’s testimony shows he graduated from high
school in Beaumont and then attended college in Abilene to play football,
where Father’s parents moved with him so they could “help [him] out.”
Father met Mother in 2018, and after leaving college, he moved back to
Beaumont with his parents. Mother decided to move to Houston to be
closer to Father because their relationship became more serious and
because Mother is licensed in Texas as a physician’s assistant.
5 Father described what ties him to Beaumont and to southeast
Texas during the hearing. According to Father, four members of his
family currently reside in Beaumont—an older brother, his parents, and
his maternal grandmother. Father also has two other brothers, one who
lives in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and the other who lives in Michigan.
Father’s maternal grandmother is a resident of Beaumont, but Father
didn’t explain whether his grandmother lives with his parents in the
home he leases or whether she has a separate home. Father said his
extended family—his aunts, uncles, and cousins—live in Louisiana.
Father testified he is employed as an operator planner at a chemical
plant near Lake Charles, Louisiana. According to Father, he is not
planning to change jobs, but if he does get transferred, his opportunity
for a transfer would be to a company plant in South Africa. Father also
explained that he earns approximately $65,000 per year in his current
job.
The trial court heard testimony that even though Father is the non-
custodial parent to a ten-year-old son, Justin, he has developed a good
relationship with him despite that Justin now lives in Tyler, Texas with
6 his mother. 2 Father’s custodial rights to Justin are governed by SAPCR
order, signed by the judge of the 326th District Court of Taylor County.
The geographical provision in that order allows Justin’s mother to
“determine the child’s primary residence without regard to geographic
location.”
As Father tells it, he did try to help Mother with Blake. For
example, Father testified that he changed Blake’s diapers when they
were soiled, that on occasion he changed Blake’s diaper at night and
would then take Blake to Mother, and that on occasion, he put Blake to
bed. Father agreed, however, that he never fed Blake, but he explained
he didn’t do so because Blake was breastfed. Father also denied that
playing video games kept him from caring for Blake. He testified he
played video games as a way to unwind. However, Father didn’t deny
that as of August 2020, when Mother evicted Father from the home, he’d
spent 528 hours playing just one specific game. Father asked the court to
downplay the time he was spending playing video games, explaining the
games were played “during COVID[,]” and he testified he would never
play games over caring for his son. Father agreed that he refused to take
2A pseudonym.
7 off from his job on the one occasion that Mother asked him to leave work
to care for Blake.
Except for the desire Father expressed to have Blake located where
he could exercise his right to visitation, Father’s remaining testimony
focused on the degree to which Father’s family members were likely to
assist Mother with Blake’s care should the trial court place restrict
Mother to living in Jefferson County or surrounding counties. When
questioned about why his parents hadn’t provided more assistance than
they did in caring for Blake, Father blamed Mother, claiming she
wouldn’t allow his parents to keep Blake because “they didn’t meet [her]
guidelines of having shots and records of vaccines.”
At the court’s request, Mother clarified that before allowing others
to care for Blake, she wanted them to have two shots, one for the flu and
another for Tetanus, Diptheria, and Pertussis (TDAP). Mother told the
court that these shots guard a child against “the two most common killers
for infants one-year-old.” Father also testified that when he talked to his
mother about caring for Blake, she told him “she could watch [Blake] but
only [at] . . . certain times.” Father didn’t explain whether he spoke to his
father about whether he was available to keep Blake so that Mother and
8 Father could work. In general, Father testified his family “was not
attentive” to Blake after Blake was born, and he agreed that Mother’s
family “was excited” about “bringing in a new life to the family[.]”
In August 2020, Mother notified Father that she was evicting him
from her home, and she also filed the SAPCR that same month. When
the trial court signed the temporary orders, the court appointed Mother
and Father as Blake’s joint managing conservators. Under the temporary
orders, the trial court gave Mother the exclusive right to designate
Blake’s primary residence within Jefferson County and contiguous
counties. 3
Before any evidence was presented in the hearing, Mother told the
trial court she wanted the geographical restriction in the final order
expanded so that as the child’s managing conservator (custodial parent),
her rights included the right to designate Blake’s primary residence in
Washington. Otherwise, Mother said she was satisfied with having the
parties’ duties and obligations remain as those the trial court gave them
in the temporary orders. In response, Father told the trial court that he
3The temporary orders address visitation and child support, but we
have left out the details regarding those rights and obligations because they are not relevant to the sole issue Father raised in his appeal. 9 opposed Mother’s request to expand the geographical restriction to
include Washington. And he also wanted the trial court to expand his
visitation so the beginning and ending periods of possession were
consistent with the periods in a standard possession order. 4 Mother
agreed to Father’s request, leaving Mother’s request the sole issue left
unresolved.
When the hearing ended, the trial court granted Mother’s request.
The trial court told the parties that Mother would be responsible “for
getting [Blake] to the airport . . . at her cost. It’s her cost round-trip. . . .
so that’s at least once a month.” The trial court explained the remaining
details would be in the trial court’s order, stating “we’re not go[ing to]
relitigate whatsoever the geographic restriction. It is what it is.” In the
section of the trial court’s final Order addressing the parties’
conservatorship rights, the trial court found that its “orders are in the
best interest of the child.” As to the geographical restriction, the final
Order grants Mother:
the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child within Jefferson County, Texas, and contiguous counties, OR Washington State.
4See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.316, .317
10 The clerk’s record does not show that Father filed a request asking the
trial court to state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 5
Standard of Review
The Texas Family Code directs that the child’s best interest “shall
always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the
issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.” 6 We
review a trial court’s rulings on these issues under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. 7 “A trial court’s determination of what is in the child’s best
interest, specifically the establishment of terms and conditions of
conservatorship, is a discretionary function.” 8 A trial court abuses its
discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules or
principles; or in other words, [when it acts] arbitrarily or unreasonably.”9
Thus, “[m]erely because a trial court may decide a matter within its
discretion in a different manner than an appellate court would in a
5See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296. 6See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002 (“The best interest of the child
shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”). 7Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). 8In re J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2021). 9Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990).
11 similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion
has occurred.” 10
Analysis
Geographical Restriction
When a trial court appoints parents as joint managing
conservators, the court must either “establish, until modified by further
order, a geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the
child’s primary residence” or “specify that the conservator may determine
the child’s primary residence without regard to geographic location.”11
The evidence shows that Mother and Father moved to Beaumont and
began living together in November 2019, but never married. By February
2020, Mother and Father had separated, and in March 2020, Blake was
born. Although Father later moved back in the home, Mother evicted
Father in August 2020 and sued to establish her rights and duties along
with Father’s rights and duties to Blake.
Even though the Family Code doesn’t provide the factors a trial
court should follow when deciding whether the custodial parent should
10In re C.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 698, 702 (Tex. 2002). 11Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.134(b)(1)(A), (B).
12 be restricted to raising her child in Texas when the custodial parent
desires to move with the child and live in another state, the Texas
Supreme Court outlined relevant considerations in Lenz v. Lenz, 79
S.W.3d 10, 15-17 (Tex. 2002). In Lenz, the Texas Supreme Court
addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a
jury’s verdict favoring her request to modify a provision in her divorce
decree, which restricted the geographical residence of her children to
Texas, so that she could move with her children to Germany. 12 The Lenz
Court considered the following factors in determining whether relocation
was in the best interest of the Lenz’s children: (1) the reasons for and
against the move; (2) the effect on extended family relationships; (3) the
effect on visitation and communication with the possessory conservator
to maintain a full and continuous relationship with his children; (4)
whether the proposed visitation schedule would allow the possessory
conservator to have a meaningful relationship with his children; and (5)
the nature of contact the children have with both parents, and the age,
community ties, health and educational needs of the children involved.13
12Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 12 (Tex. 2002). 13Id. at 15-17.
13 In an appeal we decided in 2008, we applied the Lenz factors to
affirm the trial court’s decision restricting the residence of the custodial
parent’s children to Jefferson County and its contiguous counties.14 In
contrast to the circumstances with which we were presented in Melancon,
in this case Mother testified she intended to move to another state, and
the trial court lifted the restriction to allow her to move to a state that is
over two thousand miles away.
Since the parties tried the issue to the court and because Father
didn’t request findings, we must imply all findings that are necessary to
support the judgment if they are supported by the record. 15 In a bench
trial, we must defer to the trial court’s judgment regarding the evaluation
it made as to the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, as trial
courts are given discretion in their role as the factfinder to weigh the
evidence and to decide what witnesses to believe. 16 When as here the
abuse of discretion standard applies, the appellate court asks (1) whether
14Getschel-Melancon v. Melancon, No. 09-07-396 CV, 2008 Tex. App.
LEXIS 7858, at *3-*6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 16, 2008, no pet.). 15Black v. Dallas Cty. Child Welfare Unit, 835 S.W.2d 626, 630 n.
10 (Tex. 1992). 16See In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 317 (Tex. 2021); In re N.P.H.,
No. 09-15-00010-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10413, at *7 (Tex. App.— Beaumont Sep. 22, 2016, no pet.). 14 the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its
discretion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in applying its
discretion. 17
After considering the evidence, we conclude for the following four
reasons the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Mother the
exclusive right to establish Blake’s primary residence in Washington.
First, the record contains sufficient information upon which the trial
court could exercise a judgment about whether allowing Mother the right
to establish Blake’s primary residence in Washington served Blake’s best
interest. On the record the parties developed, the trial court could have
reasonably concluded that given Mother’s occupation, Mother had a more
extensive network in Washington that would provide her with the
support she needed to help her raise the child. And even though Blake
and four members of his family live in Beaumont, the trial court heard
testimony from which it could have reasonably concluded that given
Mother’s limited network of connections and lack of family in Jefferson
County and surrounding counties, those counties do not offer and likely
A.E.M.S., No. 09-07-410 CV, 2008 Tex. App. 17In the Interest of
LEXIS 7572, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 9, 2008, no pet.). 15 will not offer Mother a comparable network of reliable caregivers who can
provide Mother the help she will need to care for Blake given the
demands of her schedule.
In addition to the background already mentioned, the evidence
shows that Mother’s mother and father are both retired. According to
Mother, one is a doctor, the other a nurse, and both are available “24/7”
to help care for Blake. As an example of Mother extended family network,
over thirty children of Mother’s family and friends attended Blake’s first
birthday party, Mother explained, a group of children that offer Blake
opportunities for “play dates” with people from families that Mother
knows, which Mother can’t duplicate in Texas.
Blake’s extended family is committed to help Blake too, Mother
added, as his maternal grandmother traveled from Washington so she
could testify if needed in the hearing. The maternal grandmother’s
testimony wasn’t presented after Mother’s attorney told the court that
the testimony of the additional witness after Mother and Father had
testified would simply reinforce Mother’s testimony.
The trial court could have also reasonably concluded that Father’s
family wouldn’t be able to provide Mother with the same level of childcare
16 that Mother could have if she lived in Washington. Mother testified that
except for Father, she has no family or friends in Beaumont who have
helped her care for Blake. Mother explained that Father’s parents had
not been able to help them due to their work schedules and that Father’s
mother was taking care of “an elderly aunt that is mentally disabled.”18
Consequently, Mother testified she put Blake in daycare so she could
work after she couldn’t find another reliable nanny when the first nanny
that she hired quit after she found another job.
Mother told the court that Father had not shown he could care for
Blake when he was sick during the week, as she explained that Father’s
work schedule prohibited him from watching Blake on short notice.
Mother also testified that Father was given every opportunity to have a
relationship with Blake after Blake was born, but he had chosen to play
video games or had gone to his parents’ home and refused counseling
rather than working toward working to foster his relationships with
them.
18Father did not testify about a disabled aunt who lived in Jefferson
County. 17 Second, the record allowed the trial court to find that by moving to
Washington, Mother believed she could earn a higher income than she
could earn in Beaumont, which she thought would also benefit Blake. For
instance, Mother testified that opportunities to work as physician’s
assistants are rare in Beaumont. And although Mother did find a job she
took in Beaumont, the job came with no benefits, no health insurance,
and no allowances for continuing medical education or licensing fees.
Mother further testified that since she is paid on an hourly basis, she
doesn’t earn anything when she takes off work and stays home with
Blake. According to Mother, there are many opportunities to work as a
physician’s assistant in Seattle, jobs that offer benefits and better
opportunities to advance than she has available to her here.
Third, Father testified the reason he doesn’t want Blake’s primary
residence to be in Washington is that he wants “to get as much time with
[Blake] as possible.” But the record allowed the trial court to believe that
Father’s opposition to Blake’s living in Washington was more about
Father’s convenience and the increased expenses he would face in seeing
his son than it had to do with whether it would serve Blake’s best interest
18 to live in a place where an extended family network was available to care
for him given Mother’s career.
For instance, the trial court heard evidence from which it could
have reasonably concluded that Father lived with Mother and Blake, he
spent more time playing video games than he spent with Blake. Father
even testified he didn’t want Blake’s primary residence to be in Houston
because it would be “quite a bit of drive for me.”
The evidence the trial court heard allowed the trial court to
reasonably conclude that Father could maintain a close relationship with
Blake despite the distance between Beaumont and Seattle, which is
where Mother said she planned to move. Mother expressed a desire to
encourage Blake’s relationship with his father. For example, she testified
that if allowed to move, she would do her part to ensure that Blake
maintained a full and continuous relationship with Father. For instance,
Mother testified she would accompany Blake on flights to and from
Houston so that he could see his Father in Texas once a month at her
expense. The trial court’s order requires Mother to fly with Blake to
Houston once a month at her expense to allow him to exercise his rights
of visitation with Blake.
19 Finally, no testimony in the record shows Father has developed a
close relationship with Blake which will adversely impact him if he is
moved. There is no testimony that Blake has any special needs or that
Blake has met or has a relationship with Father’s other child. And we
note the Order provides that the trial court may modify the order should
the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the Order
materially and substantially change. So if there is a material change in
circumstances, Father may return to court and ask the trial court to
modify the Order and place a narrower geographic limit on Mother’s
rights.
To be fair, we don’t question Father’s conclusion that the record
shows it will be more difficult for him and for his family to develop and
maintain a close relationship with Blake given the distances involved
between Beaumont and Seattle, Washington. That said, the trial court
addressed the burden Mother is creating by moving to another state by
shifting some of those costs to Mother, requiring her to fly with Blake and
pay for the expenses associated with the round-trip flights to Houston
required so that Blake may see his Father at least once a month.
20 We also assume that the trial court, having heard testimony
addressing the relatively short length of the parties romantic
involvement and the conflicting testimony about what the parties
discussed they would agree to if things between them didn’t work out,
decided that Washington would serve Blake’s needs best given Mother’s
career, her opportunities to maximize her income, and her need to have
reliable childcare provided by an extended network available to her from
her family and friends. Under the circumstances, we conclude the trial
court had sufficient information on which to exercise its discretion.19 We
hold that Father has not demonstrated that an abuse of discretion
occurred when the trial court decided that expanding the geographical
restriction to include Washington was in Blake’s best interest under the
circumstances of the parties to this case.
We overrule Father’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s Order.
AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice
Submitted on March 7, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 27, 2023 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
19Melancon, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7858, at *6.