### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00329
- CV

Stephen King , Appellant

v. Acasha King , Appellee

FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1- FM -19-003280, THE HONORABLE MADELEINE CONNOR , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This case involves the modification of a prior custody order. Appellant Stephen King comp lains of the trial court ’ s Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent

- Child Relationship , which appoint ed appellee Acasha King as sole man ag ing conservator of their children S.K . and C.K., award ed Acasha various exclusive rights regarding the children , se t conditions on Stephen ’s visitation , and awarded Acasha attorney’s fees. 1 We affirm the trial court ’ s judg ment

.
FACTUAL AND PROC ED URAL SUMM ARY Stephen and Acasha married in 20 07. They have two daughters , S.K. and C.K , who were thirteen and ten years old at the time of trial

. In Jul y 2015, while residing in Colorado , they signed a joint parenting plan that set the children ’ s primary re side nce with Stephen for school attendance purposes and gave both parents joint decision making over other “ major

1 Because the partie s share the same last n ame, we will refer to them by their f irst names. We will refe r to the c hild ren by th eir i nitial s. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9.2 decis ions. ” The plan entitled Acasha to possession every other weeke nd and every other Tuesday over night

. The plan also required agreement b etwe en the parents or the court ’ s permission before either parent relocate d. The couple ’ s divorce wa s final i n Au gust 2015.
The witnesses at trial were Acasha , Stephen , Keshlei Bridges ( monitor for Stephen ’ s supervis ed vi sitation) , Auburne Gallagher ( ow ner of the company providing supervisi on ) , Acasha ’ s father , and Suzan Baya r ( g ua rdian a d l it em )

. Acasha testified that she lived with her parents in Colorado after the divorce.
Acasha testified that Stephen would often interrupt her possession of the ch ildren b y picking

t hem up during her s che duled time , which she would accommodate to a ppea se him to avoid the

“ consequence ” of not doing so , which she explained included him preventing her from seeing the
children , “ some sort of violence or retaliatio n , ” sl ashing h er tir es, o r her waking up to him being
in h er room at her parents ’ house. S h e testified that Stephen assaulted her ten to fifteen times
betwe en when they got divorced and August of 2016 but explained that she did not call the police because she f eared hi m
. During hi s trial testimony, Stephen deni ed ever assaulting Acasha in any way
. Ac asha ’ s father testified that d uring the year that she lived with him and his
wife in Colo rado , he never saw any mar ks , injuries , o r other evidence that she had been physica lly assaulted

. Acasha explained that she di d n ot tell her par ents beca use she was

e mbarrassed that it was happening and did not want anyone to get involved.
W hen asked to de scribe the worst incident that happened during that year following the d iv orce , Ac asha testif ie d that during one of the time s Step hen interrupted her
vis itat ion with the c hildren , she was putting the children in Stephen ’ s truck , when he assaulted
her and threw her in the backseat with the ch ildren. Acasha testified that she a ttempted t o escape3 but h e caught h er , hit her again, and took her to his hom e until he returned her to her home a day
and a half later.
Acasha testified that i n June 2016, Stephen appeared at the home at midnight
while Acasha had po ssession of the children

. Accor di n g to Acasha ’ s f ather ’ s trial testimony , Ste phen smelled of al cohol and grabbed Acasha ’ s mother, so Acasha ’ s father wrestled him to the ground. In a video recording , allegedly recorded immediately following that incident , Stephen
threatened to m ov e “ my ch ildren ” t o Texas

. Acasha testifie d that Ste phen left with the ch ildren that night

. Acasha testified to another incident , around th e same time , when Stephen interrupted
a fa mily dinner she was having with the children and her p arents. Acasha te st ified th at he

scre am ed and swore in front of the children and s crea med that Acash a and her parents would

never see “ my kids ” a gain.
Acasha testifie d tha t Stephen moved with the children to A b ilene , Texas in
Octo ber 2016

. Acasha testified that she foll ow ed them to Texas a ft er Stephen told her if sh e did

not move i mmed iate ly to Texas, s he would never see the children aga in. Stephen test ified that
he and Ac asha were friends at the time and both decided to move to Texas. Acasha t estified that they all l i ve d together with Stephen ’ s aunt for a few mont hs . S h e testified that i n January 2017, the family moved to Austin, Texas

. She testified that while liv ing with the family in Aus tin ther e were multipl e occasions of violence includin g “ a physic al altercatio n on numerou s occasions ”
because Stephen became angry that she purchased a car fo r herself

. She testified that during one inci dent w hile the children were in the car, s he told him sh e was planning to purchase a different
car and he strangled h er and told he r that “ th at wasn ’ t something a good mom woul d do and that

wasn ’ t an appropriate car for a mom. ” Acasha testified th at she li ved w i th them until Septem ber
2 017 , when Stephen asked her to move out

. S h e also testified that after she moved out , Stephen4 wo ul d not allo w the children to visit Acasha unti l he inspected her new residence

. Sh e agreed to

t h e inspection , but Step hen told her h e would never allow the girls to visit because there was a smoke smell from the neighbor ’ s apartment and told her sh e coul d move back with him and the
children

. Acasha testified that she broke h er lease and moved back in with Stephen and the
childre n
. Ac a sha testifie d that in Sep tember 2018, Stephen had the children tell her she had t o
move out. Acasha testified that in Oc to ber 2018 wh ile she was living on her own in A ustin , Stephen b ecame an gry that s he w ent to a trivi a night with her fr iends and mi ss e d a text from him telling her tha t he was in the hospital , which Acasha did not believe was t rue . She testified that
he so me how always knew where she was and who she was tal king to and would ge t upset if she went anywhere ot her than work or home. She te s tified that he was “ very tech savvy ; ” that when they lived together , she would wake up to find him with her phone plugged i nt o his compu ter ; and that she believed he had put s omething on her phon e that all owed him to track her. Acasha
testif ied that a roun d this time , Stephen began calling her regularly, berating her for long periods of time, and threatening he r
. In t wo audi o recordings of phone conversations betw een A casha and Stephen
from this time , which were admit ted into evidence , Stephen threaten ed to reveal i n timate phot o s of Acasha to her employer and potential emplo yers in Texas if she did not move back t o Colorado a nd never speak to the children ag ain

. I n one of the recordings, he told her to never
call “my daug hter s ” again and t old her s he woul d be blocked f r o m S .K. ’s phone. In the other, he
gave Acasha a two

- week deadline to move before he would relea se the photo s and he is hea rd speaking to the childr en in the background around the time he was be rating Acasha for being “a

sorr y excuse of a mo ther

. ” Stephe n testified at trial that he never berated her about the trivia5 night and never threatened to rev eal intimate photos of her

. A f t er a portion of the admitted recording s was played for hi m, he agreed that his word s so unded “ like a t hreat to disclose intimate videos to prevent Ms. King from being able to earn a living. ”
Acasha testified that also a rou nd this time , in October 2 01 8 , Stephen showed up

un announced to her h ome and strangled her. S h e testified that he made her call in sick t o work
and he ld her in her home all day until she cou ld “ talk him down. ”
Acasha testified that t he last incident of violence tha t Stephen com m itted against
her w as in early January 2019. She testified that when he arrived at her home with the children , he was mad, belligerent , and sme lle d of alcohol. She testified that the girls went into one of the
two bedrooms o f he r small 70 0 square foo t house a nd that the ro oms had no doors. She testified
that Stephen wa s m ad because he thought th e puppy she was wa t ching for a co

- worker was her
pu ppy. He berated her, pushed her, strang led her, told her h e hoped she died , told her she needed

to return to C olora do , and pulled down the TV and the T V stand

. She testified that at that point he y elled to one of the childre n to “ look wha t your m o m made me do. ” She testified that the
abuse c ontinued the n ext morning when he grabbed her, threw her a round, hit her in t he head
with t he puppy , and threate ned to cut off her hair . She testified that whi le he was looking for
sciss ors, she fled t he house with the puppy. Photos of he r ripped clothin g , of bruises on
A casha ’ s arm and around her e ye , and of m arks on her neck th at she testi fi ed were caused by
Ste phen attackin g her during this incident , were admi tted into evidence. Acash a testified th a t she
believed if she stayed that he w ould kill her

. S he explained that she did not take the child ren with her because she though t it would be kidnapping because of the C o lora do custody order and
that at that time she believed she was the only one h e would hurt

. During his testimony at trial,
S tephen denied all of the allegations of physical violence alleged by A cash a
.6 A casha tes ti fied that s h e went to Colora do a f ter the January 2019 incident
regar ding the puppy and stayed for a couple weeks

. S h e testifie d that she erased h er phone data
before getti ng on the plan e because Stephen “ always knew where [she] was go ing. ” She test ified
that based o n security cam era foo tage from her home in Austin , which was not entered into evidence, Stephen went to her home seve ral times late at n ight and early in the mo rning and sent police to do a welfare ch eck while s he was in C o lorado. S h e stayed o ut

- of

- state for three weeks
becau se she was scared that he would retaliate agai nst her regarding a CPS case that was opened
while she was gone that she tho ught he would blame her for causing although she did not know
how it originated

. S h e testified that s he created a safety plan with t he help o f a women ’ s support organization in Au stin before return ing to Texas , which included getting a new car and apartment, working from home as much a s possible, wearing a wig as a disgu ise when she h ad to
leave the hou se , taking a different route ever y day , and parking at a different business and getting
a ride to work from there

. S he testified that s he did not gi ve her address to anyone

. She testifi e d
that d uring this time she called S.K. several t imes, but each time S tephen wo u ld take the phone
and berate her

. She testified that more than once during this time Stephen left her a message that

t he children were in the hospital, but each time she imme d iately called the school and confir med
that the y we re in school. Sh e testified that he showe d up to her work with the children

un planned

. Stephen testified that he had brought the children to her work because they had asked him if they cou ld bring her f l owers for Valentine ’ s Day. Acasha testified th at ano ther day
around t his time , Stephen was se en acro ss the street from her work in a rental truck.
Acasha testified that i n late February, one of her co - wor ker s witnessed Stephen place a tra ck ing device on h e r car
. Stephen testified that h e did that “ when she began to s how an7 interes t in wanting to see the girls.” Stephen pleaded guilty to placing the tracking device on he r car and was on p robation for that offe nse at the t ime of tri al in thi s case. Acash a testified that
she communicated to Stephen t hat she wanted to s ee the childre n but have no communication or contact with him

. She testified that t h e day before Mother’s Day she called and left a message asking to h ave a vide o call with the ch ildren for Mother’s Day . She testified that Stephen cal led
her back immedi ately an d told her d etails about her new c ar and the neighborhood she lived in.
She testified that later that night , he called he r and told her , “ I know wh er e you live. I know what you drive, ” a n d the n she immediately hea rd a knock at h er door. She testi fied tha t no o ne exc ept her parents and si ster in Colorado had her address. S h e testified that she called the police . The next day there was another knock at her door and sh e coul d see Stephen t hrough the peephole.
S h e cal led the poli ce again and when t hey arri ved, sh e open ed the door to find a Mother ’ s Day card in front of her door. S h e testified that she never got to see the childre n
. Acasha testified
tha t she f ound out fr om th e police that t he protective order she thoug ht was in p lace from the
tracki ng devi ce inci dent w a s not in effect , so s he filed for a protective order the next day. Stephen testified that the children had asked if they could get Acasha a Mothe r ’ s Day card and
take it to he r , which they left on the ru g outside h er door when she did not an swer. Acasha file d a suit for a p rotective order from Stephen in Austin on May 15,
2019

. The next day, Stephen sent a text message to Acasha ’s fat her , of w hich a pho t o was entered into ev idence, wh ich read in part , “ My girls a nd I will be in CO s oon for f amily and the n

we move to another country

. . . . We won ’t be back to the US after this trip unt il Xmas and only
to T X. ” Stephen admitted that he sent t he t ext and te s tified that the country he was referencing8 was C osta Rica. Acasha testified th at around the time that Stephen moved the children to Texas he had also told her that he was going to move them to Ca nada. The pa rties signed an Agreed Protective Or der , w hic h was signed by the trial
court i n June of 2019. Stephen ag reed to only communi cate with A cas ha in writi ng and only
abou t matters r egardin g the ch ildren , but he did “ not admit or agree to any of the allegations ” alleged by Acasha

. The protective order included a finding that “ Family Violence has occurr ed
and is l ikely to occur in th e future. ”
A casha testi fied that in Octo ber 2019, Stephen violate d the protecti v e order by sending her an email that was not about the ch ildren. The resulting charges a gainst Stephen for violating the protectiv e order were dismissed as part of his gu ilt y plea to the charge resu lting from placin g a tracking device on her car
. The p rotective o rder also prov ided for pro tected e xchang e of the children every other weekend at H. E.B. Acasha testified that she was there every ti me but that Ste phen only brough t the children to visitat ion once between June 2019 and January 20 2 0 , a nd on t hat one

occ urrence the children told her they did not w ant to see her and returned to Stephen ’ s car. In December of 2019, Acasha filed a petition to modify the Colorado custody
order. O n Ap ril 15, 202 0, the pa rents ag reed to a mediated settle ment agreemen t , w hich appointed a family therapis t. The trial cou r t signed an ag reed f ive

- year protective order against Stephen and in favor of Acasha in Dec ember of 20 20 , which included a factual findi ng by the
trial court that S tephen had committed family violence and that it was likely to occur in
the future.
Acasha testified that in April 2021, sh e filed for an emergency heari ng after being
made aware of allegation s by three of Stephen ’ s previous girlfr ien ds who had made vari ous9 allegations agains t him. Acasha t estified that she found out that back in July 2019, Stephen had
been arrested in F l orid a and the children had to spend the n ight with CPS regardi ng an alleg ation
of assault aga inst Stephen a llege d by Sarah Baty, a for m e r girlfrie nd of Stephen

. Stephen
conf irmed wh ile testifying at trial that the police had been called while he was staying a t a hotel with Baty and the children had to stay with CPS overnight

. Acasha also te stifi ed that she fo und

o ut that Baty had gotten a protective order agai nst Stephen

. S tephen testified at trial that the allegations of assault by Baty were untrue.
Acash a testified that s h e also found out that a nother girlfrien d of Stephe n , Corrine
Trasoff

- J i lg, had accus ed him of assaulting her, st r angling her, and h oldin g a gun to him s elf and threatening suicide in March of 2021.
Acasha testified she also was aware of allegation s by a third girlfriend, J a y me Fertig , of “ conc erning beha vior involving law en forcement

. ” Stephen t estified that he wa s arrested in October 2020 in Round Rock , Texa s for public intoxication

. A video from body cam footage was played during the tria l , which sho wed that Stephen had possession of Fertig ’ s phone

an d lied to police abo ut it bef ore i t was fou n d in his pocket. Stephen testified that a month after
that incident , Fertig accused h im of assaulting her by grabbing the wheel of her car and s teering into a guard rail . Step hen testified that he was trying to take over steering t he car wh ile F ertig pic k ed up her cell pho ne from under her seat an d that when she took control of the wheel a gain, she overcorrected and crashed into the guardrail. Stephen t estified that Fe rtig late r recanted her allegatio n of assaul t

. Acasha testifie d that the chi l dren were around t hese wome n and explained that learning about the allegations by the three gir lfriends led her to change her mind that Stephen ’ s10 violent behavior was limited to her and that she be gan to believ e that the children were not sa fe
with Stephe n
. T he g uar dian a d l it e m t estified at trial that Acasha believes that the children have
witnessed at least one or two episodes of domestic violence , but that s he did not find anything that supports that assert ion when sh e sp oke to the child ren or the the rap ists invol ved i n the case

. She testified t hat she had revi ewed the CPS history from Flori da

— where the events alleged by Baty occurred

— and that the case was ruled out and t he children denied witn essing anythi ng. Sh e te stified t hat t he childr en have been v er y cl ear with h e r and w ith CPS that they had not witnessed any domestic violence. S h e told the trial court that both parties agree there is no physical danger to the chil dren

. The g ua rdian a d l it em testif ied that s h e a ttempted to talk to Stephen ’ s three girl f riend s regarding the al legati o ns in this case. She was unable to re ach Baty

. She testified
th at Trassoff

- Jilg stated that “ something did happen b etween the two of them ” b ut the children
were not in t he home whe n it occurred

. Th e g ua rdian a d l it em testified t hat Fertig had formally
withdrawn her allegations against Stephen

. S h e testified that when she asked Fert ig , “ di d anything ever happen in front of the kids, ” Fe rtig answered, “ no. ” Sh e als o test ified that Fertig
had only po sitive things to say about Step hen as a fa ther

. I n May of 202 1, a fter a hearing , the trial court issued temporary or ders appoin ting
Aca sha as temporary sole managing conservator and Stephen as temporary poss essory
conservator of the chi ldren

. It require d that Stephen ’ s visit ation be pr ofession ally supervised. A
modification to this order was signed b y the trial court in August of 2021 that removed the requir e ment that St ephen ’ s vis its be professionally supervised a nd allowed for a n agr eed
third

- pa rty superviso r. It also ordered Stephe n to turn over the children ’ s passports.11 Acasha testified that they had to switch their family therap ist multiple t i mes because Stephen voice d trust issues for himself or for the ch ildren rega rding three d ifferent
thera pists

. Acasha testified tha t Stephen was unsupport ive of the family therapy and of her relationship with the children.
Acasha ad mitted th at f rom 2015 to April 2021 when the children were primaril y with Stephen, they never had any behavio r probl e ms at sc hool , never had any issues w ith their
p eers , were generally happy children , and had excelle nt grades. Acash a admitted that since living with he r , S.K. had st a rted struggling in her advanced math class

. Acasha testified th at Ste phen was on d isability and h ad not worked since the div or ce. Whil e living i n Texas he was hospitalized multip le times , and she witnessed him have seizures about once ever y couple weeks

. The g uardian ad litem testified that the children were havin g a har d time wit h t he
switch to l iving with mom and that they had r esent ment towards her

. S he recommended a n even possession split and th at Stephen and Acasha be appointed f ull joint managin g conservators where they both need to make decisions for the children jointly , wh ic h she believed wo uld be in
the chil dren’s best intere st. She believed if the children were able to spend more time with Stephen, it would help their relationship with their mother. S h e testified that she had not seen any signs of alienation by Stephen.
On J une 1, 20 21 she filed her g uardian ad lit e m report , which in p art s tated that “[t]he girls had not lived with their mother or spent the night with her for two years prior to April 29th, and the transition has not gone well , ” “[t]hese chil d ren appear t o h ave abandon ment issues
as di splayed by their lack of trust and f eeling unsafe with their mother since she is the one who
pre v iously left them , ” “[e]verything these girls have learned to tr ust, their father, grandmother, and the family dog, h as been ta ke n a way from th em except for fou r hou rs onc e a week12 supe rvised by an ot her stranger

. ” It also stated that Acasha “ acknowledged that they worship him
and are not afraid of him.” When asked whe ther she told the g uardian ad litem this, Acasha
exp lained that s he d id not mea n th a t they worshipped him i n a h ealthy w a y. The supervised visitat ion monitor te stified t hat d uring Stephen’s supervised possessions, she never felt that the visitations were in any way inap propriate or endangering regarding t he children

. Sh e testified th a t she never heard Stephe n ba d mouth or say anything negative or d e meaning about Acasha , but rather, that he encouraged the children to have a relationship with their mo m and told them th at their mom is amazing.
Acasha testi fied t hat t hr oug hout the Fa ll o f 2021 Stephen sent her message s that

wer e not related to the chi ldren, copies of which were entered into evidence. S h e testified that he
had been drivi ng the children to and from Abilene w ithout a supervisor and without her permission

. She testified th a t Stephen had been pushi ng the bo unda ries of the protective order and his behavior was escalating. Acash a testified that at the time of trial , late November of 2021, she had not yet received the c h ildren ’ s passports and that Stephen ha d told her he co uld not find
them. Stephen testified that at the time of trial he had only recently found them in his storage
unit. Acasha testified that she had recently moved to a home that was in the children ’ s current school district. Ste phen testif ie d that at the time of trial his house was for sale and had been on
the mar ket for about three months

. A fter hearing all the evidence , t he d i strict co ur t issued its Final Orde r in Suit Affecting the Parent

- C hild Relationship , which a s relevan t to the ch al lenges b efore us , appoi nted
Acasha as so le managing conser v at or and Stephen as possessory conservator , assigned Acasha
exclusive rights and duties regarding the children , created a visitation sc hedule for Stephen that

start s with supervised vi sitation

— by a professional supervisor or a person agree d to by the13 parti es

— w ith the opportunity to trans ition into unsupervised possession o f the children a fter a period of time and if certain conditions are met , require d S tephen to pay t he f ull cost assoc iated
with th e sup ervised v isitation , and a warded Acash a atto rney ’ s fees

. The trial court found that
th ere was credible evidence prese nted that there was a history or pattern of family violence committed by Stephen

. This appeal follow e d

.
STAN DARD OF REV IEW
S uits a ff ecting the par ent

- child relationship are “ intensely fac t dr ive n” and require
courts to bala nce man y factors. Lenz v. Lenz , 79 S.W.3d 10, 19 ( Te x. 2002). “In deter mining
iss ues of conservatorship and p ossessio n of a child, t he primary conside ratio n of t he court is t he best interest of the child,” and the tria l co urt has broad disc r etion to asse ss the child ’ s be st interest. Coleman v. Coleman , 10 9 S.W.3d 108, 110 (T ex. App.

— Au stin 2003, no pet.) (citin g Tex. Fa m. Code § 153

. 0 02; Gillespie v. G illes pie , 6 44 S.W.2 d 449 , 4 51 (Tex. 1982)); see In re
J

.J.R.S. , 627 S.W. 3d 211, 218 (Tex. 20 21) (“A tria l court ’ s determi nation of what is in the
child ’ s b es t interest, specific ally the es tablishment of terms and c o nditions of conservat o r ship, is
a discret ionar y func ti on.”).

The r elevant questions in a modif ication case are wheth er the circumstances of a
pa rty affected by the or iginal order have materially and substantially changed and whether
mod ification would be a posit ive improveme nt for the child. I n re V.L.K. , 24 S.W.3d 338 , 343 (Tex. 2000) (citing Te x. Fam. Code § 156 .101( a) )

. 2 A trial court ’ s ord er modifying a joint managing conservatorship will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is

2 Neither party challenges that the circumstances materially a n d s ubstanti ally changed and the record supports that they had. Thus, we do no t address this q u est ion

. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 ( “ The court of appeals must hand down a writ ten opin ion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised a nd neces sar y to f inal disposition of t he a ppeal.”)14 esta blished by t he complaining party. Echols v. Olivarez , 85 S .W.3d 475, 477 (Tex. App.

— A u stin 2002, no pet. ). A t rial court does not abus e its discretion unl ess it acts in an unre as onable or arbitrary manner or without reference to any guiding pr inciple, an d we may not re verse for
abuse of discretion m e rely because we disagr e e with the decisi on. Z eifman v. Mi ch els , 212 S.W.3d 5 82, 587 (Tex . App.

— Austin 2006, pet. denied); Coleman , 1 09 S.W.3d at 110.
I n our revi ew, we ask first whether the trial c ourt had su fficient inf orm ation on
which to exercise it s d iscretion an d then whe t her it erred in i ts app lication of th at di scretion.
Ec hols , 85 S.W.3d at 477

– 7 8

. There is no abuse of discretion “as long as s ome evidenc e of a

su bst ant ive and probative character e x i s ts to suppor t the tria l court ’ s decision .” Ze ifman , 212 S .W .3d a t 587. Under an abuse

- o f

- discretion standar d , legal

- and factual

- suf ficiency challenge s “are not independent grounds of error, but a re relevant factors in ass essing whether
the trial cour t a bused its di scretion.” Id. “The test f or leg al sufficien cy is ‘ whether the eviden ce
at trial would enable r e asonable and fair

- min ded people to reach t he verdict under review,’ ” and requires us to credit evi dence fav orab le to the finding if a reasonabl e factfinder co uld and
d i sregard contrary e viden ce unless a r e ason a ble factfinder cou ld not. Teal Trading & De v. , LP

v. Champee Spri ngs Ranches Prop. Own ers Ass ’ n , 593 S.W.3d 324, 333 (Tex. 2020) ( qu oting City of Keller v. Wi lson , 168 S.W.3d 80 2, 827 (Tex

. 2005)). In c onsiderin g factual sufficien cy,

w e consider th e ent i re record and “set a side the finding only if t he evidence supporti ng the finding is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly u nj ust.” Gonz ales v. M aggi o , 500 S.W.3d 656, 66 2 (Tex. App

. — Austin 2016, no pet.).
Whether reviewin g leg al or factual suffi c iency, we must bear in m ind that the trier
of f act is the “sole j udg e of the credibili ty of the witnesses and the weight to be giv en their

test imony.” In r e P.A.C. , 498 S.W.3d 210, 214 (T e x . App.

— Housto n [14th D i st.] 2016, pet.15 de nied)

. “The trial court is in the best positi on to observe the deme anor and personalities of the
witnesses and can ‘feel ’ the forces, powers, and influenc es that canno t be disc erne d by merely reading t he record.” Echols , 85 S. W.3d at 4 7 7 (quoting Jeffers v. W allace , 615 S

. W.2d 2 52, 253 (Tex. App.

— Dal la s 1981, no writ)); see Zeifman , 212 S.W.3 d at 587 ( stat ing trial court “is best
able to observe the witnesses’ dem ea nor and per sonalitie s”); I n re J.R.D. , 169 S.W.3 d 740, 74 3 (Tex. App.

— A ustin 200 5 , pet. denied) ( observing th at tr ia l c ourt “is in a bette r position to
determine w hat will be in the best interest of the c hild since it faced t he parties and their witnesses, observed the ir demeanor, and had t he o pp ortunit y to evaluate the claims made by each parent”). “In an appea l fro m a b ench trial, fi nding s of fact are the equiva l ent of jury answers to special issues,” a nd u nchallenged findi ngs of fac t are binding in our review “unles s the contrar y is esta bl is he d as a matter of law or there i s no evidence to suppor t the finding. ” Mo rr is

v. Veilleux , N o. 03

- 20

- 00385

- CV, 2021 WL 434 1967, at *5 (Tex. A pp.

— Austin Sept. 24, 2 021, no pet.) (mem. op. )

.
DISC USSION On appeal, Stephen compla ins tha t th e trial cou rt a bu sed i ts dis cretion in a variety
of ways
. In his first four issues on appeal , Stephen ch allenges the trial court ’ s order cr eating a step

- up plan for his possession that begins with supervised possession and leads to a standard possession orde r if he me e ts the c ou rt o rdered requirements

. In Ste phen ’s remaining issues , he
raises ch allenges to the tr ial court ’ s family violence f indi ng , appointment of Acasha as sole managing conservator and Stephen as possessory conse rvator, assign ment of certain excl usi ve rights a nd dut ies involving the chil dren to Acasha , and award of atto rney ’ s fee s in favor
of Acas ha

.16 P ossession We first addre ss Stephen ’ s claims regarding limitations to his possessory rights , which i nclude : (1) that his possession of the childre n b e supervis e d for the first 18 mon ths; ( 2)
that the transi tion to unsuper vised possess ion be continge nt on Stephen being “ in complian ce with all civil and criminal court orders in any and all jurisdictions ” and “ not subject to any
additional criminal all ega tions ” ; (3 ) that he be solely financial ly responsible for the costs

asso ciated with s upervised visit ation and that supervision must be done by either a professional

s upervisor or a person agreed to by both parties in wri ting ; and (4) that his possession b e lim ited

t o a sta ndard possession order starting 36 months after the ord er if he is i n compliance wi th
the order

. Step hen alleges th at the s e terms impos e re st rictions or limitations on his right to possession of the child ren that exceed those that ar e req uired to pr otect the best interest of the
child ren
. See T ex
. F am
. C ode §153.193 ( “ The terms of an order that denies possession of a child

t o a p arent or imp os es restrictions or limitations on a parent ’ s right to possession of or access to a
chil d may not exceed t hos e that are required to pro tect the best interest of the child

. ” )

. Stephen argues that the evidence was legally and f actua lly in sufficient to sup port that the trial court ’ s rulings were in the best interest of the children

. See id.
A no n - exh austive list of f actors guides our re view of the trial court ’ s determinat ion of the b est interest of the children. Holley v. Adams , 544 S. W.2d 367, 371

– 72 ( Tex. 1976)

. The Holley factors are : ( 1 ) the desire s of the child ren ; ( 2 ) the emotional and ph ysica l needs of t h e ch ild ren now and in th e future; ( 3 ) the emotional and phys ical danger to t he
child ren now and in the future; ( 4 ) the pare nta l abilities of the parents ; ( 5 ) the programs available
to assist thes e individuals to promote the best interest of th e child ren ; ( 6 ) t he plans for the17 chi ld ren by these individuals or by the agency seek ing custody; (7 ) the stability of the home or
propo sed placement; (8 ) th e a cts or omissions of the parent which may indicat e that the existing parent

- child relationsh ip is not a proper one ; and ( 9 ) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the
pa rent. Id. Additional f actors in modification cases are the ch ild ren ’s need s for st ability and the
need to limit litigation regarding conservatorship of the child ren
. In re S.E .K. , 294 S.W.3d 9 26,
9 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2009, pet. denied) (citing In re V. L.K. , 24 S.W .3d at 343 ). We revi ew these factors in reviewing the evi dence to determine whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the trial court ’ s ruling. S ee Town sen d v. Vasq uez , 569 S. W.3 d 796, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. deni ed)

. T he first factor , the children ’ s preference s, we ighs in S t ephen ’ s favor. There was evidence presented that the children were resistant to the trans ition to liv ing wit h t heir mot her
and expr essed to Acasha that they wanted to live with th e ir father

. The sec ond and third factors

— the emotional and physical needs of and dangers to
th e child ren now and in the future

— favor Acasha. T he trial court made a finding tha t there wa s credib le evidence of a history or p attern of family violence commi t ted by Step hen in th e two

year period preceding the case or during the pendency of the suit. 3 See Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c) (“T he court shall consider the commission of family viole nce or sexu al abuse in determining whether to deny, restrict, or limit the pos sessi on of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory con servator. ”); In re S.E.K. , 294 S. W.3d at 929 (“ [E] vid ence of sexual
abus e o r family violence must be considered in determining the best interest of the child ren in a modification proceeding .” ). One alleged assault during the two

- year p erio d precedin g the suit

3 Stephen challenge s the trial court ’ s find ing of family violence, which is addressed below.18 was the a ssault regarding Acasha’s co - worker’s puppy during which A cash a testi fied , the
children wer e present

. Acasha also testified to an assault that oc curred in front of the children in
Colorado when he threw her into his truck with the children and held he r against her will for o ver a day. There was also evidence of mult iple interactions wit h police that were eithe r in front of a
child or r esulted in t he c hildren having to stay with CPS overnight. There was also testimony of multiple assau lts and protective orders against three other women
. Further , he pleaded gu il ty to placi ng a track ing d evice on Acasha ’ s car and explained at trial it was because Ac asha wanted to

s ee the children more. Stephen argues that those incidents do not pose a danger to the children
because they were not in fr on t of the children. Steph en has not provided any supp ort for his argument that only violent and cri minal behavior t hat occurs in front of the children poses potential emotional or physical danger to them n ow or in the future. Acasha also testified that at the time of trial Stephe n was p ushing the bounds of her protective order and she believed his
behavio r was e scalat ing. The record also provides some evidence in Stephens ’ favor

. The
g uardian ad litem re commended that it would be b est for the children to have time with b oth
pa rent s a nd that more time with their father would improve their relationship with their mothe r. There was also testimony that the c hildren fe lt abandoned by Acasha and that the trans ition to
her care was difficult

. The fourth facto r, the parenta l a biliti es o f the paren ts , is neutral

. There was testimony favorable to both parent s’ ability and co n cern s raised. T he guardian ad litem
recommended an even split of possession. The guardian ad litem testified that a CPS investigati on found that both homes were s afe

. The g u ar di an ad litem testif ied that Stephen was a good father. Ther e was evidence presen t ed that the children had g ood grad es and a routine19 while living with their father . T h ere was also testim ony that while living with their mother, the
children wan ted their f ather , but not mothe r, at their extracurricular activities

. T he fifth fac to r

— p rogra ms available to assist thes e individuals to promote the
best interest of the child ren

— f avors Acasha. Acasha testified that Stephen was unsupportive of therapy, w hich was in tended to ease the t ransition of Acasha having possession of the
children a gain

. Th e sixth f actor , t he plans for the child ren by the parents , and the seventh factor , th e stabil ity of the home , fa vor s Acasha. The r ecord reflects that at the ti me of tri al , Acasha and Stephen were both li ving in the children ’ s schoo l district

. However, St eph en ’ s house was for
sale. The evidence also suggested that Stephen had previously u sed moving wit h the children as a threat agai nst Acasha, had sent a text t o Acasha ’ s father that stated he was m oving to another country and was n ot planning to come back for about six months, and had no t gi ven th e children’s passports to Acasha as ordere d by the trial court because he claimed he cou ld not find
them until just b efore tri al

. Acasha tes tified t hat he did not ask her about the m ove to Texas. Stephen testifi ed it was their join t plan to move to Texas.
The eight h factor , th e a cts or omissions of th e parent which may indicat e that the

ex istin g parent

- child relations hip is no t a proper one , fa vors Acasha

. Acasha testified that she
belie ve d the children worship Stephen in an unhealthy way and that Stephen used the children to

man ipulate he r
. Sp e cifically , s he testified that aft er the puppy incident she did not d isclo se her
addr ess t o any o ne, but Stephen showed up to her work with the chi ldren and left flowers an d showed up to her house with the children an d left a Mother ’ s Day card

. Acasha ’ s te s timony also included descriptions of multiple times that S tephen int erfer ed with Aca sha ’ s vis itation under previous order s, including : b y only br ingin g the children to on e visitation under the fi rst custody20 order in this case ; by setting additional requir e m ents than the Colorado custody order require d such as inspecting he r res idence and vetoing v isitation at the residence ; by requiring he r to move
to Texas to co ntinue to see the children; by threateni ng to expose intimate photos of her to
emp loyers if she did not move back to C o lorado and not contact the children again; by

comm itting acts of violen ce against her that caused her to f le e for her safe ty , which creat ed a
strai ned dynamic between her and her children ; and by be i ng unsupportive of the family the r apy that was intended to ease the transition to Acasha having regula r cus tody

. Addi tiona lly , the re was substantial evide nc e presented that suppo rts Ac asha ’ s testimony , i ncludi ng photos of
Acasha ’ s ripped clothing and bruises after the puppy incident, the admitted recordings of Stephen threatening to reveal intimate photos of A casha if sh e did n ot move out of state and cease speaking t o the childre n , Stephen pleading guilt y to placing a tracking device on her car
after she e xpressed interest in see ing the c hildren, the incident with CPS , his arrest for public intoxication, and t he protecti ve orders against hi m. In f avor of Stephen, the visitation su perviso r testified that h is visitations were appropriate

. The guard i an ad li t em testified that the re were n o s igns that he alien ated the
children from Acasha

. Stephen denied that he assaulted A casha in any way and that Acasha
abandoned the childre n leav i ng him as the sole caregi ver for ext ended periods of time. Acasha
admitted that she left the ch i ldren with St e phe n after the puppy incident

. The ninth factor, considering any excuse for the ac ts or omissio ns of the parent , favors Acasha. Acasha explain ed that she fled after the puppy incident without the children
because she thought at that time t hat Stephen was only hurting her and she believed taking the
children would violate the Colorado c ustody O rder.21 Out of the nine factors , only one weigh s in f avor of Stephen. The a dditi o nal
f actors , the child ren ’ s need s for st ability and the need to limit liti gation rega r ding conservatorship of the child ren , a lso weigh in favor of Acasha

. See In re S.E.K. , 294 S .W .3d at
930

. Acasha t estified in detail to how Stephen had interrupted , pr e vented, or otherwise negatively impacted her visitation of and relationshi p with the c hildren , which resulted in this
suit. The evidence is neither legall y nor factu ally insuffic ient to suppo rt the tr ial court ’ s restriction s t hat were place d for the best interest of the children

. See Townsend , 569 S.W.3 d at
813 ( holdi ng evid ence factuall y and legally sufficient to support best interest of child
de termination when onl y on e factor weighed in favo r of a ppellant ).
C oncluding that the evidence was fa ctually an d legally sufficient to support the
trial court ’ s finding, we nex t consider whether i t was an abus e of discretion

. Ec hols , 85 S.W.3d

at 477

– 7 8

. We must determine wh ethe r, based on the elicite d evid ence, the trial cour t made a
reasonable decisio n , which i s one that was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Id. at 478.
B ased on al l the evid e nce discuss ed in our above Holl e y analysis , the trial cour t ’s step

- up plan was not arbitrary nor unreasona ble

. See Z eifman , 212 S.W.3d 587

. The trial court
had “ the aut hority to determine the frequency and duration of visits, as we l l as the
limitations a nd safeguards to be placed on such visits. ” In re L.M.M. , No. 03

- 04

- 00452

- CV,
200 5 WL 2094758, at *9 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 31, 2005, n o p et. ) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

. C o nsider ing t he evidence regarding Stephen ’ s e sca lating violent , h a rassing , and

man ipulative behavior , combined with the test imony that his super vise d visitatio ns had been appropriate, it was not an abuse o f discretion for th e trial co ur t to order supervised visitation

. Sup ervised visita tion is a r e asonabl e condition to be or dered to ad dress potential safety concerns.
In re E. N.C. , No. 03

- 07

- 0009 9

- CV , 2009 WL 638188, at *18 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 13, 2009 ,22 no pet.) (mem. op. )

. Another option is to or der a step

- up in possession provided that the parent comply with speci f ic requirements of the cour t’s order

. In re L.M.M. , 2005 WL 2094758, at *10 ( holding that trial court did not a buse its discretion by orde r ing step

- up possession schedul e for

mo ther that started with supervised visitation and then moved to s ta ndard p osse s sion o rder after
six months of therapy). A trial court ma y also d etermine tha t a standard possession order rathe r than a n even s plit of po ss e ssion is in the best interes t of the children. See Garza v. Garza , 217 S.W.3d 538, 552 (Tex. App.

— San A ntonio 20 0 6, no pet.) (trial court did not abuse its
discretion by d ecreasin g mother ’ s w eekly posse ssion with children when , even though mother

was g oo d and loving parent, there wa s evidenc e she exhibited difficulty thinking logically and coherently and th at she ha d problems involving rage episodes, mood fluctuations , and impulsiv e and unpred icta ble behavior; and father would provide a more stable , con si s tent, and
safe environment .)
The st ep - up plan and conditions address the safety concerns raised by Ste phen ’ s hist o ry of violent and criminal behavior by increasing visita tion and removing th e requirement of supervision if Stephen can refr ain from comm it t ing additional criminal offens e s and comply with
th e protective orders against him. It also addresses c oncerns rai s ed by Stephen ’ s behavior that
interfered with Acasha ’ s v is itation under prev ious order s. The tempor ary pe riod of supervised
visitation , the step

- up plan, and the conditi ons of lawful behavior are not arbitrary or
unreasonable con si d ering the r ecord in th i s case. See Z eifman , 212 S.W.3d 587

. The trial court
d id not abuse i ts dis cretion i n setting these restrictions on Stephen ’s possessi on of the children.
See Tex. Fam. Code § 156.101 (a) ( “ The court may modify an order

. . . that pro v ides for th e
posse s sion of or access to a child if modificatio n would be in the best interest o f the child

. ” )

. Stephen has not established that the challen ged terms of the order imp os e res trictions or23 limitations on h is right to possession that e xceed t ho s e that are requir e d to protect the best
interest of the child. See id. §1 53.193

. We overr ule Ste phen ’ s first four issues.
Finding of Family Violenc e Stephen ar gues that the re was lega ll y and factually insufficient evi dence to support t h e trial co urt ’ s finding of family v iolence in the two years pri or to the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit, beca use he denied the allega tio ns that he assaulted Acasha in any way and bec ause Acasha ’ s fathe r testified that he did not see a ny evidenc e that she had been

ass a ulted during the year she li ved with him.

“ Fa mily violence ” as define d by the Texas Family C o de is :
an act by a member of a famil y or househol d against another member of the family or hou sehold that is intende d to resu l t in physi cal harm, bodily injury, a ssaul t, or sexual assault or th at is a threat tha t reasonably p laces the member in fear of immin ent physical harm, bodily i njury, assault, or s exual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect o neself

.

Tex. Fa m. Code § 71.004 ; see also i d. § 101.0125 (appl ying definition in section 7 1.00 4 to suits
affec ting parent

- child relationship).
Acasha te stified that Step hen assaulted her on two different occasions by strangling her in her h ome in T exas durin g the tw o - year period prior to t he filin g of the sui t

. Acasha presented photographs o f her ripped clothes and bru ises that she testified were fro m the
most recent inc ident of assault , which involved a co - worker ’s puppy and the children present i n the hous e. The t rial court ’ s finding is also su p ported by t he issuance of tw o p rotective orde rs issued by the tri al court against Stephen to protect Acash a. See Tex. Fa m. Co de § 153 .004 ( “ In24 determining

. . 

### . whether there is credible evidence of a h i sto ry or p atte rn of past or present

. . . family v iolence by a parent or ot her person, as appli cable, the court sha ll consider whethe r a protective order was re ndered

. . . ag ainst th e parent or other person during the two

- year period preceding the fili n g o f the s uit or during the pendency of the suit. ” ) Stephen argues that the protective orders do not provide suppo rt for a finding of family violence because Ste phen agreed to the protective order s but denied any of the a llegations
contained within. Ho w ever, both protective orders include a n explicit fac t ual findi ng by the trial court that family violence oc curred an d is likely to occur again . Thus, Stephen ’ s conditional

a gr e ement to the protective order s does not render them irrelevant for purposes of supporting the
trial court ’ s ultimate determination t hat famil y violence had occurred

. Stephen ’ s arguments tha t he denied the allegation s and that Aca sha ’ s fat her did

n ot witn ess evidence of the assaul ts merely att ack the t rial court ’ s resolution of co n flicting

e vidence

. S ee Zeifman , 212 S .W.3 d at 587 (tri a l cour t “is be st able to observe the witn esses’
dem ea nor and personalitie s ”)

. T he trial court could have reasonably credi ted Acasha ’ s testimony over Steph en ’ s de nials. It also could have resolved A c asha ’ s and h er father ’ s testimony by believing Acasha ’ s testimon y that she did not want her famil y to know about the abuse because
she was embarrassed and did not want them invol ved. Additionally, the period of time that
Acas ha lived with her father is not the same p eriod of time in which the trial court foun d family
violen ce had occurred

. Crediting the evidence fav ora ble to the finding we ho ld that it is legally
sufficient to s upport the trial court ’ s fi nding of family viole nce. Teal Trading & De v., LP , 5 93 S.W .3d at 333

. In consider ing the e nti re record w e hold th at t he evidence is fact ually
suff icien t as the eviden ce in support of the fin ding is not “ so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly u nj ust .” See Gonzales , 50 0 S.W. 3d at 662

. Nor is the fi n ding of fa mily violence an25 abuse of the trial court ’ s discreti on as it was not unre as onable , ar bitra ry , or without reference to any guiding pr inciple

. Z eifman , 212 S.W.3d 587

. We overrule Stephen ’ s fifth issue.

Mother as S o le M anaging Conservator and F a ther as Po ssessory Conservator
In his sixth through ei g ht h iss ue s , St ephen alleges that the tri al co urt abused its
discretion in appointing Acasha as the sole managing conserva tor of the children and granting
her exclusive ri ghts regarding the children.
A trial co urt is prohibited from appointing “ joint manag i ng co nservators if
credible evidence i s pre sented of a his tory or pattern of past or present

. . . physical

. . . abuse by one parent directed against the other parent

. . . . Tex. Fam. Code § 153. 0 04 (b). Th e trial court ’s
fi nding that there was a histo r y of family violence prohibited the co urt f rom naming Step hen as a joint managing conservator. I d. A sole managing c onservator will have the exclusive right t o make deci sions concerning the child r en unless limited by a court order. Id. § 153.132. These rights include determining the child ’s primary residence ; making education al , health, and financial decisions;
and ma naging passp orts. Id

. The trial court awarded these exclusive righ t s to Acash a. A trial court may award one parent exclusive dec ision

- m a king rights when there is evid ence t h at the parents have difficulty communicating and making decisions

. See Supakorn dej v. Xu , No. 03

- 20

- 00177

- CV, 2021 WL 81862 , at * 3 (Tex. A pp.

— Austin Jan. 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op. ) . Here , there was e vidence tha t Stephen regularly engaged in inappropriate

co mmunication with Acasha, including violating the protective o rder by communi cating with her
about matters no t rega rding the children , the charges of which were dismissed when he pleaded guilty to pl acing a tra c king device on her car.26 F urther, considering the evidence an d Hol l e y factors detailed above, the evidence
is neither legally nor factually in su fficient to suppo rt that the trial court ’s conservatorship
de cision s were in the best interest of the chi ldren

. See Teal Trading & De v., LP , 593 S.W .3d at
3 33 ; Gonzales , 500 S.W. 3d at 662

. Nor is the finding an abuse of the trial court ’s discretion as it
is not u nre as ona ble , arbitrary , or without reference to any guiding pr inciple

. See Z eifman , 212 S.W.3d 587 ; In re L.C.L. , 396 S.W.3d 71 2, 719 (Tex. App.

— Da llas 2013, no pet.) ( concluding that trial court did not abus e its discretion when it appointed father as sole ma na g ing

cons ervator of child where trial court made affirmative finding that t here was history of f a mily
violenc e by mother ) ; Johnson v. Johnson , No. 03

- 19

- 00196

- CV, 2020 WL 4726589, at *10 (Tex. App.

— Aust in Aug. 13, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op. ) ( holding trial co urt did not abuse its discre tion

w hen it awarded father exclusive rights wh en the record suppor t ed that mother h ad physi cally
assaulted fath er , involved the children in disputes with father , act ed in a hostile and aggress iv e

manner toward father , and did n ot communicate positively or cooperate in making decisions for
the children )

. We overrule Steph e n ’ s sixth through eight h issue s
. Attorney ’ s fees In his ninth issue, Stephen challenges the trial cour t ’ s order awarding A ca sha $62,6 62

. 77 in attorney ’ s fees

. Stephen argues that Acash a did not present sufficient evidence to
prove her attorney’s reason a ble hours worked and re asonable rate s . Aca sha asserts that the attorney b illing records entered in to ev idence and her attor ne y ’ s test i mony regarding her hourly

rate , and the rate of her paral egal is sufficient evide nce of the particular services performe d , who performed them, w hen the services wer e performed, the reasonable amo unt of time required to27 perfor m the services, and a reasonab l e hourly rate as required by Roh rmoos Vent ure v. UTS W DVA Healthca re, LLP , 578 S.W.3d 469, 50 1

– 02 (Tex. 2 019)

. In a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship, the court may aw a rd reason able

attorne y’s fees, expens es, and costs. See T ex . F a m
. C ode §§ 106.001 , .002

. “ A ‘ reasona ble ’ attorney ’ s fee ‘ is o ne that is n ot excessive or e xtreme, but rather mode ra te o r fair. ’ ” S u llivan

v. Abraham , 48 8 S.W.3d 294, 299 (T ex. 2016)

. We re view a distr ict court ’ s order awarding

attor ney ’ s fees for a cle ar abuse of discretion

. Spar ks v. Rut kowski , No . 03

- 1 7

- 00452

- C V,
2018 WL 3799 940, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Aug. 3, 20 18, no pet.) ( me m
. op. )

. A district court
abuses its dis c retion when it ac ts arbitrarily, unreasonably, wi th out regar d to guiding rule s or principles, or without suppo rt ing evi dence. Bocquet v. Herring , 972 S.W.2d 1 9, 21 (Tex. 1998).

“ [ A ] claimant seekin g an a ward of at t orney ’ s fee s must prove the attorn ey ’ s

re asonable hour s wo rked and reasonable rate by pres en ting suff i cient evid ence t o supp ort the fee

awar d sought. ” R ohrmoos , 578 S.W.3d at 501

– 0 2

. “ Sufficient evi dence includes, at a minimum,
evidence of (1) particula r services performed, (2) who performed th ose services, (3) approximately when th e services w ere perfo r med, (4) the rea sonable amount of time required t o perform the services, a nd (5) the reasonable ho urly rate for each person performing su ch

ser vices. ” I d

. at 502.

Here, Aca s h a ’ s attorney , Step hanie McFarland , presented invoices that itemized

t he partic u lar services per formed, who performed those servi ce s, wh at d ay they were p erformed

on and how long it t ook to perform the services, and t he hou rly rate for each person performing
such services

. Further, McFarlan d testified that she has been continuously p racticing la w fo r
over twent y yea rs , that her hourly rate wa s $300 per hour, that she was working with a board

- certified paralega l, and that th e ir total fe e s were $67,662.77. She exp lained that there28 were case s pecific facts that support that the fee amou nt was reasonable , which includ ed : that
there was a guardian ad litem ; the allegations of domestic vi olence , which she t estified requires speci al ized train i ng and experience to handle ; that there were n umerou s professional therapists,
superv is ors and other people in volved in the case ; that the case required emergen cy hearings an d emergency orders ; and tha t the criminal allegations against Stephen created ong o ing changes to
the circumstances of the case
. S te ph en does not speci fy how the trial court ’ s award of a ttorney ’ s fees was not
reasonable. T he record reflects t hat McFarla n d present ed the trial court with detailed invoices
and that she testi f ied to her ex p erience and the ex perience of her par ale ga l and t o the speci fic facts of the case that requir ed th e amo unt of time and services that were perf ormed. The invoic es and McFarland ’s te sti mony are legally and factually sufficient to support the court’s award o f $62,662.77 in a ttorney’s fees to Ac ash a. See Spa rks , 2018 WL 379994 0, at *4 ( “ The district

co ur t has wide discretion in awarding reasonable attorney ’ s fees u nder sectio n 106.00 2 of the
Fa mily Code. ” )

. Co nsidering the entire rec ord and ap p lying the fac t ors set out in Rohrmoos
Venture , 578 S.W.3d at 494 , we ca nnot conclude th at the t rial cour t abus e d its discret ion in its

aw a rd of attorney ’ s fees t o Acasha

. Se e Sparks , 2 018 WL 3 79 9940, at *2

. W e overrule Stephen ’ s ninth and fina l issue re g arding attorn e y ’ s fees

.
CONCL USIO N
Hav ing ov erru led Stephen ’ s appell ate issues, we affirm the trial c ourt ’ s o rder

.

_______________ ___ ____________ ____________ D a rlene Byrne , Chi ef Jus tice29 Before C hief Justi ce Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis
Affirmed
Fi led : June 8 , 2023