Case Title: Brod v. Baker

Citation: 591 S.W.2d 457

Docket Number: B-8777

State: texas

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Date: 1979-12-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
591 S.W.2d 457 (1979) Raymond Eugene BROD, Relator, v. Honorable Andrew Z. BAKER, Judge, Respondent. No. B-8777. Supreme Court of Texas. December 19, 1979. Simpson & Burwell, Inc., M. Bruce Fort, Texas City, for relator. Jean E. Hosey, Galveston, for respondent. McGEE, Justice. This is an original mandamus proceeding in which relator, Raymond Eugene Brod, seeks an order directing the Honorable Andrew Z. Baker to transfer a petition to modify an order appointing him managing conservator of his two minor daughters. The petition to modify was filed by Beverly June Howell, formerly Beverly June Brod, who is the mother and possessory conservator of the two girls. Raymond and Beverly Brod were divorced in 1972. Custody of their two daughters was originally granted to Beverly Brod, now Howell, but that order was modified by an order of June 18, 1976 in which Brod was made managing conservator. The girls have resided with their father in Waco, McLennan County, since June of 1976. On July 19, 1979, during a visitation period, Howell filed a petition to modify the June 1976 order. This petition was filed in the Family District Court of Galveston County, 306th Judicial District, the court of continuing jurisdiction. Howell alleged a change of circumstances, that retention of the children by Brod was injurious to their welfare, and that her appointment as managing conservator would be an improvement for the children. Brod filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain possession of the children. In response to Howell's petition to modify conservatorship, Brod filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to McLennan County. After a hearing, the judge, Andrew Z. Baker, denied the writ of habeas corpus and appointed Howell as "temporary conservator" pending the hearing on Howell's motion to modify conservatorship. That action is not challenged here. With respect to the petition to modify, Judge Baker denied Brod's motion to transfer. Venue in suits affecting the parent-child relationship is governed by section 11.04 of the Family Code. That section provides in pertinent part: Tex.Family Code Ann. § 11.04 (Vernon 1975 & Supp.1979). Transfer of proceedings to the county in which venue is proper is addressed in article 11.06 of the Code, which provides in part: Tex.Family Code Ann. § 11.06 (Vernon 1975 & Supp.1979). In Cassidy v. Fuller, 568 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1978) this court held that "Section 11.06(b) is mandatory in its provision that `... the court, on the timely motion of any party, and on a showing that venue is proper in another county ... shall transfer the proceeding to the county where venue is proper ....'" Id. at 847. We hold that Cassidy v. Fuller is controlling here. At the time of the motion to transfer, Brod was managing conservator of the girls. Howell concedes that the girls have resided with Brod continuously since June 1976. Venue was proper in McLennan County and it was the mandatory duty of Judge Baker to transfer the proceedings to McLennan County. This duty obtains regardless of the temporary order deemed appropriate by Judge Baker in the habeas corpus proceeding.[1] The question of a permanent modification in managing conservatorship is properly triable in McLennan County. It is expected that Judge Baker will transfer the conservatorship proceedings in accordance with this opinion; the writ of mandamus will issue only in the event he does not do so. [1] The validity of the temporary order issued in the habeas corpus proceeding is not before us. Section 14.10(c) of the Family Code authorizes the court to issue temporary orders if there is a "serious immediate question" concerning the child's welfare, Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 14.10(c) (Vernon 1979). We note that the habeas corpus order did not purport to modify the managing conservatorship order of June 1976, and thus did not contravene the policy against using habeas corpus as a "vehicle to relitigate custody." See Trader v. Dear, 565 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.1978); Strobel v. Thurman, 565 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.1978).