REVERSE and REMAND and Opinion Filed March 6, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01108-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.Q.L., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03861 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

In this appeal, Amber Lancaster challenges the trial court’s orders for 

conservatorship of her child made in a final decree of divorce. Because there is no 

reporter’s record of the trial and the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 34.6(f) have been satisfied, we reverse the divorce decree and remand for 

a new trial. 

Amber Lancaster (Mother) and Jason Lancaster (Father) were married in 

2016, and have one child, B.Q.L. In 2020, Mother filed a petition for divorce. She 

sought to be appointed B.Q.L.’s sole managing conservator. Prior to that, Father’s 
 –2– 

parents filed a suit affecting the parent–child relationship seeking conservatorship 

rights. The SAPCR was consolidated into the divorce case. 

On June 8, 2021, the trial court held a final bench trial, apparently remotely 

via Zoom. The final decree of divorce, signed three months later, states the “record 

of testimony was duly reported by the court reporter for the 255th Judicial District 

Court.” Our record does not include a reporter’s record of that proceeding. 

In the decree, the trial court appointed Mother, Father, and the grandparents 

joint managing conservators of B.Q.L., with the grandparents having the right to 

designate the child’s primary residence. Due to Mother’s history of alcohol abuse, 

the trial court ordered that Mother’s possession of B.Q.L. is to be supervised, and 

the court established a step-up schedule governing Mother’s access to B.Q.L. Due 

to Father’s history of illegal substance abuse, his possession of and access to B.Q.L. 

were similarly restricted. The trial court made no express findings as to Mother’s or 

Father’s fitness as parents. This appeal followed. 

In her first issue, Mother contends the evidence is legally insufficient to 

support a finding that she is an unfit parent since the trial court appointed her a joint 

managing conservator. She argues the trial court’s failure to find her unfit to act as 

B.Q.L.’s joint managing conservator precluded the court from granting the 

grandparents conservatorship rights. She asks this Court to reverse and render 

judgment denying the grandparents conservatorship rights. In her second issue, 
 –3– 

Mother argues the case should be reversed and remanded for new trial since there is 

no reporter’s record of the trial. 

We are unable to review Mother’s legal sufficiency complaint without a 

reporter’s record. See Schafer v. Conner, 813 S.W.2d 154, 155 (Tex. 1991) (per 

curiam); In re A.C.J., No. 05-21-00977-CV, 2022 WL 1222677, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Apr. 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (missing record precludes court from 

reviewing challenge to appointment of non-parents as managing conservators). We 

turn to Mother’s issue about the missing record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.6(f) governs situations when the reporter’s record is lost or destroyed. TEX. R.

APP. P. 34.6(f). As is applicable to this appeal, Mother is entitled to a new trial if: 

(1) she timely requested a reporter’s record; (2) without her fault, a significant 

portion of the court reporter’s notes and records has been lost or destroyed; (3) the 

lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record is necessary to the appeal’s 

resolution; and (4) the lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record cannot be 

replaced by agreement of the parties. Id.

Mother timely requested the reporter’s record from the June 8 trial from 

Yolanda Atkins, now the former Official Court Reporter for the 255th Judicial 

District Court. When the reporter’s record became past due, we issued a notice to 

Atkins, directing her to file the record within 30 days. In response, Atkins informed 

the Court that she was at a doctor’s appointment on June 8, 2021. Thereafter, 

LaToya Young-Martinez, current Official Court Reporter for the 255th Judicial 
 –4– 

District Court, informed the Court that there is “no deputy reporter’s statement, if 

there was indeed a sub that day, and also, the Court checked with the Auditor’s office 

and there was no invoice to pay a sub for that day.” 

In light of these circumstances, on February 8, 2022, we abated the appeal and 

ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing and make written findings as to: (1) 

whether the trial was recorded; (2) if so, the name of the reporter who reported it; 

(3) if so, whether the record can be transcribed; (4) if the record can be transcribed, 

the date it will be filed; (5) if the record cannot be transcribed, the reason and whether 

Mother had any fault; (6) if the record cannot be transcribed, whether the record is 

necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and (7) if the record cannot be transcribed, 

whether the record can be replaced by agreement of the parties. We ordered both 

Atkins and Young-Martinez to be present at the hearing. 

On April 12, 2022, a supplemental clerk’s record with the trial court’s findings 

was filed. The trial court found that Atkins, the former court reporter, was the court 

reporter on June 8, 2021. The court further found that Atkins’ testimony at the 

hearing that she was not present on that day was untruthful. The trial court indicated 

it had “a Zoom I-cloud recording of the June 8, 2021 Trial.” The court also found 

appellant had no fault in why the record had not been transcribed by Atkins. 

We reinstated the appeal, but abated it again because the trial court failed to 

make all the findings requested in our February 8 order. In a May 5, 2022 order, we 

instructed the trial court to conduct a second hearing and make written findings 
 –5– 

regarding whether: (1) Atkins’ notes from the trial can be transcribed by another 

court reporter; (2) if so, the date the record will be filed; (3) if not, whether the record 

is necessary to the appeal’s resolution; and (4) if not, whether the record can be 

replaced by agreement of the parties. We again ordered Atkins and Young-Martinez 

to be present. 

On June 27, 2022, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed with the trial court’s 

second set of findings. The trial court found that Atkins stated she had no notes 

because she was not present at the trial; both attorneys stated the record is necessary 

to the appeal’s resolution, and both attorneys stated the record cannot be replaced by 

agreement of the parties. 

We reinstated the appeal and specifically adopted the trial court’s findings that 

(1) Atkins testified she was not present at the trial held on June 8, 2021; (2) her 

testimony was untruthful; (3) Atkins was the reporter for the trial; (4) Atkins stated 

she has no notes from the trial; (5) Mother is not at fault for the reporter’s record not 

being transcribed; (6) the attorneys state the record is necessary to the appeal’s 

resolution; and (6) the record cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties. We 

ordered the parties to address the findings in their briefs. 

Appellees, B.Q.L.’s paternal grandparents, argue Mother is not entitled to a 

reversal because she was not diligent in obtaining the reporter’s record after we 

issued our May 5, 2022 order. Appellees are under the mistaken impression we 

ordered the current court reporter to file a record of the June 8, 2021 trial, apparently 
 –6– 

using the Zoom I-Cloud recording the trial court mentioned. They contend Mother 

should have taken action to enforce our May 5 order. We instead ordered the court 

reporter to file a reporter’s record of the second hearing we ordered. Although the 

judge who presided over the trial referred to having a video recording of the trial, 

that judge is no longer on the bench and any recording is effectively unavailable. 

The requirements of Rule 34.6(f) have been satisfied in this case. Mother 

timely requested a reporter’s record; without her fault, there are no court reporter 

notes and records from the trial; and the lost record is necessary to the appeal’s 

resolution and cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties. We sustain Mother’s 

second issue. 

Accordingly, we reverse the divorce decree and remand for a new trial. 

211108F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –7– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.Q.L., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-21-01108-CV 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-03861. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Nowell and Garcia 

participating. 

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s final 

decree of divorce is REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. 

 It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of March 2023.