Pena v. Pena

8 S.W.3d 639, 1999 WL 1084246
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 2, 1999
Docket99-0321
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 8 S.W.3d 639 (Pena v. Pena) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pena v. Pena, 8 S.W.3d 639, 1999 WL 1084246 (Tex. 1999).

Opinion

8 S.W.3d 639 (1999)

Diana S. PEÑA, Petitioner,
v.
Omar Ismael PEÑA, Respondent.

No. 99-0321.

Supreme Court of Texas.

December 2, 1999.

Richard Bruce Gould, McAllen, for Petitioner.

Alfredo Morales, Roel (Robbie) Flores, McAllen, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner challenges a divorce decree establishing her and her former husband as joint managing conservators of their son. She argues that she presented "credible evidence" of a "history or pattern" of domestic violence, and thus that the trial court could not appoint joint managing conservators under Texas Family Code § 153.004(b). In affirming the trial court's judgment, the court of appeals correctly recited that the trial court is vested with wide discretion in determining custody issues. See Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex.1982). However, we disapprove of the following language in the court of appeals' opinion:

In the present case, the two hitting incidents left Diana with a black eye each time. However, Diana's testimony only vaguely connects the two hitting incidents as both having been precipitated by arguments over Omar's ex-wife and daughters. We do not know who initiated the arguments, whether the hittings were provoked in any manner, or what other factors may have contributed to either or both incidents, or any other relevant details that may show a relationship, connection or predictable "pattern" of physical abuse.

986 S.W.2d 696, 699. These considerations are not relevant to determining whether there was physical abuse or a history or pattern of domestic violence under the statute.

The petition for review is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

in the Interest of D.T., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Adrian Gaitan v. Erica Thumann
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014
in the Interest of C.B. and J.B., Children
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012
Viera v. Viera
331 S.W.3d 195 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Michael Charles Fuller v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
in the Interest of J. G., a Child
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007
In Re ZAT
193 S.W.3d 197 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
In the Interest of Z.A.T.
193 S.W.3d 197 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
In Re ACS
157 S.W.3d 9 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
In the Interest of A.C.S.
157 S.W.3d 9 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Gonzalez, Cleotilde v. Gonzalez, Tereso
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004
Burns v. Burns
116 S.W.3d 916 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Loan Thi Hoang Ngo v. Son Duc Ngo
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Mari Tierney Hartbrich v. Bret-Ashley Vance
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 S.W.3d 639, 1999 WL 1084246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pena-v-pena-tex-1999.