Reversed and Re manded and Opinion filed May 16 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00871

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 66243

O P I N I O N In this restricted appeal involving a suit to modify the parent

- child relationship , a mother appeals the default judgment against her that removed her as a joint managing conservator of the child. Because error is shown on the face of the appellate record, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings

. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
In 2005, the trial court iss ued an order appointing respondent Mary
Contreras and Michael Morrow as joint managing conservators of K.M., their
minor child

. In April 2011, petitioner Anselmo Contreras, Jr. , Mary’s ex

- husband,2

filed suit in Montgomery County to modif y that order. The case was transferred to Brazoria County. Anselmo attached to his amended petition Michael’s signed affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights.

The tri al court held a hearing on the matter ; Mary did not appear. By written order, signed July 10, 2012, the trial court stated that Mary , “although duly and properly cited
, did not appear and wholly made default

. ” As reflected in the order granting modification, the trial court found the material allegat ions in the petition
to be true and t hat the requested modification was in the best interest of the child.
The trial court removed Mary and Michael as a joint managing conservator s of
K.M. and appointed Anselmo as the child’s sole managing conservator . The trial court appointed Mary as a po ssessory conservator with supe rvised visitation with
the child.
Mary filed this restricted appeal on September 5, 2012
, asserting error on the
face of the record because there is no affirmative showing that Mary was served with citation. Mary also challen g es the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment

. A NALYSIS To prevail on a restricted appeal, a party must establish that (1) the party filed a notice of restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed
, (2) it was a party to the underlying suit, (3) the party did not participate in the hearing that result ed in the judgment that is the subject of complaint and did not
file any timely post

-

judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Alexander v. Lynda’s B o utique , 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004). It is undisputed that the first three prongs have been satisfied. The parties dispute wheth er error is apparent
on the face of the record. The face of the record includes all papers on file in the3

appeal, including the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. See DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffitt , 815 S.W.2d 551, 551 (Tex. 1991).

In contrast to the u sual rule that all presumptions will be made in support of a judgment, in a restricted appeal the rule is that there are no presumptions of valid issuance, service, or return of citation when examining the default judgment. See Primate Const., Inc. v. Sil ver , 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam); Harvestons Sec., Inc. v. Narnia Invs., Ltd. , 218 S.W.3d 126, 133 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). In the absence of an appearance by Mary or a waiver by Mary of service of process , ther e mu st be an affirmative showing that Mary was duly served with process , independent of the recitations in the default judgment. See Harvestons Sec., Inc. , 218 S.W.3d at 133. Mary contends error is apparent on the face of the record because there is no a ffirmative showing in the record that she was duly served with process.
The trial court recited in the default judgment that Mary had been duly and properly served with process. But, in a restricted appeal, to withstand a challenge that a party was not served with process, the appellate record must contain an affirmative showing that the party was duly served with process; recitals in the judgment are insufficient. See Harvestons Sec., Inc. , 218 S.W.3d at 133. The appellate record in this case contains no return of service or other affirmative showing that Mary was duly served with process. On appeal, Anselmo does not assert that the appellate record contains an affirmative showing that Mary was duly served with process. Instead, Ansel mo points to a certified copy of a return of service that, according to the certification, was filed in the trial court in Montgomery County before this case was transferred to Brazoria County. Though
Anselmo attaches this document to his appellate brief, this document is not a part of the appellate record in this case. With limited exceptions not relevant to this4

appeal , an appellate court may not consider matters outside of the appellate record.
See Resource Health Servs., Inc. v. Acucare Health Strategies, Inc. , No. 14

- 06

- 00849

- CV, 2007 WL 4200587, at *1, n.1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). The appellate record does not show that Mary ma de an appearance in the trial court or that she waived service of process, and there is no affirmative showing in the appellate record that Mary was duly served with process, independent of the recitations in the default judgment. Therefore, Mary has established that error is apparent on t he face of the record, and we must reverse the trial court’s default judgment against her and remand this case to the trial court

. See Primate Const., Inc. , 884 S.W.2d at 15 2

– 53 ; Harvestons Sec., Inc. , 218
S.W.3d at 133

– 34. 1

We , therefore
, revers e the trial court’s judgment against Mary and remand
th is case to the trial court for further proceedings.

/s/ Kem Thompson Frost Justice

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.

1 Even if we were to conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s judgment against Mary, the remedy would be to reverse and remand rather than to reverse and render. See Holt Atherton Ind ustries, Inc. v. Heine , 835 S.W.2d 80, 86 (Tex. 1992); Wilson v. Wilson , 132 S.W.3d 533, 539 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). Therefore, we need not and do not address Mary’s legal

- in sufficiency argument because it would not provide Mary with greater relief

. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.