### NUM BER 13-08- 0053 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
RA UL L OZA NO, A pp ellan t,
v. M A RT HA

L OZA NO, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw No . 5 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es R o d rig u ez a n d G arza

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza This i s a n appea l from a denial of a moti on for new tr ial i n a d iv or ce proceed ing

. By four issues, app ellant , Raul Lo z ano , cont end s thatthe trial court ab used its discretion in deny ing his motio n for new tr ial bec ause: ( 1) the div is ion of the c ommunit y es tate w as not d o n e in a n e qu it a b le a n d ju s tm a n n e r; (2 ) t h e ca lc u la t io n o f c h il d s u p p o rt a n d re t ro a c t ive child supp ort w as base d on insuf f icient ev iden ce and not don e in accord ance w ith the child suppo rtg uid eli nes cont ain ed i n the famil y co de, see T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 154. 001- .309 (V er non 2 0 0 8 & Supp. 2009) ; ( 3) he w as improper ly deni ed adeq uate v is it ati on w it h the coup le’s mino r child; and (4) the den ial of his oral mot ion for contin uan ce w as imp rope r. W e affi r m.T he ch i l d, R

. L. , was t wel v e y ear s ol d at t he t i m e of t he f i nal hea r i ng. 1
T h e tra n s c rip t o f th e h e a rin g o n a p p e l l e e ’ s m o ti o n s to c o m p e l a n d f o r s a n c ti o n s w a s n o t f i l e d w i th 2 th i s C o u rt. 2 I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND App e l l a n t

a nd appe ll ee, M artha L oz ano, w er e mar ri ed on Janua ry 30, 1993, and had
one c hil d tog ether ; how ev er , in Ma y 2006, the par ti es sto pped l iv ing tog ether

. Appel lan t, 1
a c iv il ian co ntract or

w or ki ng i n Afg hani sta n for the bette r par t of ni ne y ears, filed an or ig ina l peti ti on for div or ce on M ay 31, 2006. Appel lan t l ate r f ile d h is f irst amended pe ti ti on for divorce on March 12, 2 007 . Appe llee w as sub sequen tly serv ed wi th no tice of

app ellant ’s firs t amended peti ti on, and she filed her or ig ina l answ er and or ig ina l count er-p eti ti on for div or ce. On J uly 20, 2007, appel lee fil ed a “M oti on For D ock et C ontrol Order ,” req uest ing that the t ri al cour

t s et de adl ine s for

di sc ov er y -rela ted i ss ues. O n the sa me day , app ell ee als o f il ed a moti on for

m edi ati on. The tr ial court , af ter a hear ing , g ra nted appel lee ’s doc ket cont rol mot ion, se t the case fo r trial on Ja nua ry 14, 20 08, and set the followi ng dead lines: (1 ) Nov ember

14, 2007 for

the submi ss ion and compl eti on of al l re spons es to req uest s for dis cl osure; and (2 ) all other dis cov er y w as to be compl eted thi rty day s p rio r to th e final h e a rin g. Appel lee se rv ed appe ll ant w ith i n te rrog ator ies and re q uest s for product ion and dis cl o s u r e
. A p p e l l a n t ma d e n o o bj e c t i o n s t o t h e d i s c o v e r y re q u e s t s , a n d p ro v i ded no
answers or i nformati on i n respon se to ap pel lee ’s req uest s. On Nov ember 5, 2007, appel lee fil ed moti ons to c ompel dis cov er y and for sanct ion s, al leg ing that appel lan t had notrespon ded to her discovery requests. T he trial court condu cted a he aring on app ellee’s moti ons at w hic h nei ther appell ant nor hi s tr ial counsel appeared. The tri al cour t order ed appel lan t t o respon d to appel lee ’s di sc ov er y re q uest s b y

D ecember

10, 2007. The t ri al

2 court also ordered app ellantto pay the expense s of discovery , court cost s, and $5 0 0 in atto rney’s fees to app ellee a s sanctio ns.T he ci r cum st ances of appel l ant ’ s j ob and st at i on i n Af ghani st an was a po i nt of cont ent i on i n t he t r i al 3 cour t

. Appel l ant i ni t i al l y cont ended t hat he was st at i oned i n Af ghani st an a s a cont r act orwhose pur pose was t o sup por t t he U ni t ed St at es m i l i t ar y
. T hus, appel l ant ar gued t hat hi s st at us was essent i al l y t he sa m e as t hat ofU ni t ed St at es m i l i t ar y per sonnel , and t her ef or e, he was ent i t l ed t o t he r i ght s and pr i v i l eges aff or ded under t he Ser v i cem em ber s C i v i l R el i efAct ( t he “ Act ” )

— nam el y , pr ot ect i on f r om hav i ng a def aul t j udgm ent ent er ed ag ai ns t hi m i n an y c i vi l ac t i on or pro c ee di ng
. See 5 0 U

. S

. C

. § 521( a) ( 2008)

. However , at a hear i ng o n a p p e lle e ’s m o tio n f o r te m p o r a r y o r d e r s , a p p e lla n t’s c o u n s e l a d m itt e d th a t a p p e lla n t w a s w o r k in g in Af ghani st an a s a ci v i l i an. Appel l ee t est i f i ed at a l at er hear i ng t hat appel l ant was not m i l i t ar y per sonnel and , t he refore , w as no t en t i t l ed t o p rot ec t i on un de r t he A c t

. F urt he rm ore , ap pe l l an t ha s no t di rec t ed us t o, no r are w e a w are of, an y provi s i on i n t he A c t o r c as e l aw i nterpre t i ng t he A c t t o p rot ec t ci vi l i an co ntr ac t ors w ho are n o t s e rv i n g i n th e m i l i ta ry. 3 On N ov ember

29, 2007, appel lan t f il ed an unv er ified moti on for re hear ing , arg uin g that the t ri al cour

t’ s o rd er g ra nti ng appel lee ’s moti ons to c ompel and for sanc ti ons w as
unw ar ra nted becau se: (1 ) appel lan t’ s tr ial couns el, Joe Ma rt ine z , w ent t o the w ro ng co urt; and ( 2) appel lan t had a meri tor iou s defense for f ail ing to atten d the heari ng and par ti ci pate in dis cov er

y bec ause he w as sta ti oned “ in Afghan is tan su p p o rt in g U .S. troops. ” I n 3
re spons e to appel lan t’ s moti on for re hear ing , appel lee filed a mot ion for e nforce ment and cont em pt an d seco nd m otion s to com pel an d for sanct ions and ha d the mot ions setfor a hear ing on J anuar

y 14, 2008. Ma rt ine zfil ed a w ri tten moti on for cont inu ance on J anuar y 9, 2008, and a moti on to w it hdraw

as co unsel on J anuar

y 16, 2008. The tr ial cour t g ra nted Ma rt ine z ’s moti on for cont inua nce a nd m otion to w ithdra w as coun sel. T he case w as reset, and the trial court
order ed appe ll ant t o respon d to appel lee ’s di sc ov er y req uest s. App ellee lat er f iled a m otion urgi ng the trial court t o e n t e r tem pora ry orders
re g ardin g ch il d s uppor t and the par

tie s’ us e of communi ty proper ty

. A hear ing on
a p p e lle e ’s m o ti o n fo r te m p o ra ry o rd e rs w a s set fo r Fe b ru a ry 1 1 , 20 0 8

. Pr io r to th e he a rin g, atto rney Abel Hinojosa f iled an app eara nce a s app ellant ’s counse l. On F ebr uar

y 11, 2008, the tr ial cour t c onduc ted t he hear ing on a ppel lee ’s moti on for te mpora ry

orders. At the h ear ing , H ino jos a s tated thatappell ant w as unabl e to atten d becau se he w as sti ll i n Afg hani sta n and or all y mov ed the tr ial cour t to cont inu e the hear ing and to den y

the ou tstan ding sanctio ns mo tion. Hinojosa also sta ted thatapp ellantw as a ci v il ian co ntract or

i n Afghan is tan; appel lan t w as not mi li tar y personne l; and the reason for appel lan t’ s absen ce at the hear ing w as that he w as in a Jordani an hospita l re ceiv ingN ei t her app el l ant ’ s pur por t ed e m pl oy m ent cont r act nort he t ax r et ur n wer e ad m i t t ed i nt o ev i dence. 4 4 treatme n t f o r an uns peci fied i nfir mity

. In ad dit ion , t he par ti es dis cus sed the n ature of appel lan t’ s j ob and compens ati on. Appel lee ’s couns el re pr esent ed to the tr ial co urt t hat app ellantw as pa id aroun d $ 6 7 , 0 00 p er y ear un der a con tract an d tha t the contract prov ide d for a 10% “compl eti on bonus.” She als o stated thatappell ant’ s inc ome w as not tax ed bec ause itw as ear ned ov erseas
. Hi noj o sa dis puted the c ontent ion s made by app ellee’s cou nsel. Hinojosa represen t e d t h a t a ppe llant on ly make s $67 ,29 5 pe r y ear, includin g all bon uses, and thathe pa id taxes o n his earn ings, as indicate d by a tax return f iled w ith the Inte rnal Revenue Serv ice. Hinojosa the n requeste d tha t the trial court aw ard 4 at mos t $84 0 per

month in temporar

y chi ld suppo rt

. The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y ordered that: (1 ) appel lan t pay $1,000 in chi ld suppo rt per month to appel lee ; (2 ) ap p e llant maint ain R .L. under

hi s h eal th i nsurance; ( 3) the par ti es’ se rv e as j oin t conse rv ators o f R.L.
w it h s tandard v is it ati on ri g hts ; (4 ) appel lee mai ntai n ex cl usi v e us e and poss ess ion of the partie s’ house ; and (5) appellan t com ply w ith the previous discovery orde rs. T he trial cou rt setthe cas e for final hear ing on M ar ch 6, 20 08. Hinojosa f iled an oth er mo tion fo r cont inua nce on Februa ry 22, 20 08, and on March 5, 2008, he f il ed a moti on to w it hdraw as counsel for

appell ant. Each of

thes e moti ons w as setto be heard at the M ar ch 6, 20 08 hear ing ; how ev er , the tr ial cour t re set the h ear ing on the p endi ng moti ons to M ar ch 10, 2 008. The tr ial co urt c onduc ted a final hear ing i n thi s mat ter on M ar ch 10, 2 008. At the hear ing , Hi noj osa appeared and ex pr ess ed to the tr ial co urt t hat a ppel lan t no lon g er
w is hed for couns el to w it hdraw and urg ed y et an other oral mo ti o n for c onti nuanc e. Cou nsel onc e ag ain ex pr ess ed th at a p p ell ant w as in Afghan is tan a nd w as not a ble to atten d the hear ing bec ause his empl oy ment c ontractw ould b e ter minat ed. Appel lee obj ect ed to appel lan t’ s o ra l moti on for cont in u a n ce ; t he tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y deni ed appel lan t’ s mot ion

. Appel lee al so re -u rg ed her moti on to co mpel and for sanc ti ons. The t rial co urt den ied appel lan t’ s u nv er ified moti on for re hear ing thathad beenA p p e lla n t d o e s n o t c o m p la in a b o u t t h e tr ia l c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o fs a n c tio n s f o r d is c o v e r y a b u s e in th is 5 a p p e a l. Appel l ant di d no t p ut f or t h ev i dence at t he M ar ch 10 , 200 8 f i nal hea r i ng. T he o nl y ev i dence

6 cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d i s app el l ee’ s t est i m ony at t he M ar ch 10 , 200 8 f i nal hea r i ng. 5 car ri ed w it h the ca se. Ap pel lan t’ s ple adi ng s w er e str ic ken, and app ell ant w as, onc e ag ain , ord e re d t o p ay the $50 0 in sanct ions previously imp osed

. The trial court then hea rd 5 testim ony from a p p e lle e. Appe llee test if ied th at: (1) the pa rties have a tw elve-y ear-old 6 chi ld; ( 2) the par

ti es’ house is in her name; (3 ) appel lan t has a reti re ment ac countw it h an unkno w n bal ance; (4 ) she has a re ti re ment acc ount w orth approx imat ely $90,000; (5) appella n t se n t her

$1,5 00 per

month for s ev er al months for t he hous e pay ment and to suppo rtR .L.; and (6 ) appel lan t t old her thathe made around “ 100- and -so -[ thous and] a y ear .” Ap pel lee req uest ed th at ap pel lan t be re q uired to mai ntai n the ch ild o n his heal th ins ur ance pol ic y , s he be pai d re troact iv e chi ld suppo rt , appel lan t not b e g ra nted v is it ati on
w ith the child outsid e the coun try , and she be g rante d the parties’ ho use. Appe llee also p ro vide d t h e t ri al cour

t w it h a l is t of i tems that w er e appel lan t’ s s eparate p ro per ty

. After hear ing appell ee’ s test imony , the tri al cour t granted the div or ce and al l re li ef req uest ed by appel lee

. On M ay 23, 2008, appel lan t fil ed a motio n for newtri al, alle g ing that the tr ial co urt: (1) did not d iv ide th e com mu nity prop erty in a fai r a n d j u s t m ann er; (2) fa iled to pro perly cal cul ate c hil d s uppor

t and retroact iv e c hil d s uppor t; and ( 3) fail ed to aw ard hi m proper
v is it ati on w it h the par

ti es’ ch il d. Th e t ria l cour t s et t he hear ing on a ppel lan t’ s mot ion for
new tr ial for J une 25, 2008. How ev er , pr ior

to the J une 25, 2008 hear ing , appell ee f il ed an “E merg ency M oti on for C lar ific ati on of Pr ior Order for P oss ess ion or

Ac ces s.” Atthe hear ing on t his moti on on Ma y 29, 2008, a p p e llee arg ued t hat a ppel lan t s houl d notbe g ra nted “o v er nig ht” super v is ion w it h the parti es’ chil d because : (1 ) R. L. do es not h av e a b ond w it h appel lan t; (2 ) R. L. ha s s tated t h a t h e d o e s not w is h to spend the nig ht w it h appel lan t; and ( 3) appel lan t doe s n ot int end to re si de in the Uni ted S tates

. After speak ing w it h R .L., the tr ialT he r ecor d does not cont ai n an or der or an or al r ul i ng gr ant i ng or deny i ng ap pe l l ee ’ s em er gency 7 m ot i on. I nst ead, t he t r i al cour t not ed t he f ol l owi ng: W el l , but C ounsel , aga i n I don ’ t thi nk that [ t he] cl ause on Page 13 oft he d ecr ee h as be en m et sat i sf act or i l y
. I don’ t k now t hat he’ s ent i t l ed t o ov er ni ght v i si t at i on wi t hout showi ng so m e k i nd o f p roo f [ ofr esi dency i n t he Uni t ed St at es] , so I

— y ou know, base d on what ’ s bee n o rd e re d b y th e C o u rt, I d o n ’ t k n o w th a t h e ’ s e n ti tl e d to o v e rn i g h t y e t. 6 cour t t ook the mat ter

under adv is ement. 7 At the hea ring on a ppe llant’s mo tion for new trial, H in ojo sa explained app ellant ’s absen ce from the Ma rc h 10, 2008 final hear in g. Appel lee ’s co unsel recoun ted t he procedu ra l his tor

y of thi s c ase and noted appell ant’ s repe ated failure to produce respon ses to disco v erypropo und ed to him. Ap pellee ’s couns e l a ls o r e quested thatthe trial court orde r appe llant to pay his child supp ort obligation s and the pre v iously grant ed a ttorn ey’s fee a w ard. T he trial cou rt denie d ap pellan t’s mot ion for n ew trial o n August 4, 200 8. No
re q uest s for

findi ng s of fact or conc lus ion s of l aw w er e made by ei ther par ty

. This appeal follo w ed. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

the tr ial court ’s denial of a moti on for

newtr ial for a n abus e of di sc re ti on. In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 1 12, 1 14 ( Tex . 200 6) ; see Ricks v. Ricks , 169 S.W .3d 5 23, 5 26 (T e x. A p p
. – Da ll a s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t

. ). A c o u rta b u s e s it s d is c re t io n if ita c t s a rb it ra ri ly,
unr eason abl y , or w it hout re ferenc e to g uid ing r ule s a nd pr inc ipl es. See Ricks , 169 S.W .3d at 52 6; see als o Loehr v. Loehr , N o. 13 -0 8- 00380- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 6 863, at * 6 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi Aug. 28, 20 09, no pe t.) (mem . op. ). At ri a l c o u rtd o e s n o ta b u s e i t s d is c re t io n i f t h e re i s s o m e e vid e n c e o f a su b s t a n t ive and probati v e c haract er to suppo rti ts deci si on. G a r za v
. G a r za , 2 1 7 S.W .3d 5 38, 5 49 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2006, no p et.)

. In famil y l aw ca ses, th e a b use of dis creti on sta ndard of r ev iew

ov er lap s w it h the tradi ti onal su ff ic ien cy of the e v ide nce sta ndards of
re v iew , and there f o re , l eg al and factu al suffici ency are noti ndependen t g ro unds of
re v ersi ble er ro r. Id. I nst ead, leg al and factu al suff ici e ncy are factors rele v ant t o our
ass ess ment of w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on. Id. ; see Zoril la v. W ahid , 837

S.W .3d 2 47, 2 52 n. 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, no p et.) ( hol din g thatthe nor mal suffici ency

st andard of the e vide n ce rev iew i s p art of the abuse of dis creti on rev iew and notan inde pen den t groun d for rev ersal and declining to follow the mino rity rule—“(1) did the trial cou rt h ave su f

f icient informa tion upo n w hich to exercise its discretion ; and (2) did the trial court err i n its app lication o f discretion”—in an alyz ing abuse of discretion). Mo re o ve r, b e c a u s e n o f in d in gs o f fa c to r c o n c lu s io n s o f

l a w we re re qu e s t e d , we
mu s t a ffi r m t h e j u d g me n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u rt o n a n y l e g a l t h e o r y t h a t i s s u pported b ythe
ev ide nce. S e e E

Z Pa wn C o r

p
. v
. G o nzale z , 921 S. W .2d 3 20, 3 22 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1996, w ri t den ied ); see als o R ober son v. Rob ins on , 7 6 8 S

. W

. 2 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 (T e x. 198 9) (holding that , in the a bsen ce of f indings of

fact an d con clusions o f law , the trial court is pr esume d t o h a v e fo u n d t h e n e c e s s a r y fa c t s i n s u p p o rt o f i t s j u d g me n t i f t h e r e is any probati v e ev ide nce to s uppor t s uch findi ng s)

. III
. T H E T RI A L C OURT ’ S D I VI SI ON OF TH E C OM M U N I TY E ST A TE By hi s first is sue, appel lan t c ontends that the tr ial co urt’ s d iv is ion of the c ommunit y est ate w as unj ust and unfair becau se it re li ed upon appel lee ’s tes ti mony at t he M ar ch 10, 2008 he ar ing , w hic h w as “[ c]o nfusing , [ u]nreason abl e[,] and [i ]ts [c ]redi bil ity w as [q ]ues ti onabl e.” Ap pel lee arg ues that the t ri al cour t’ s div is ion of the c ommunit y es tate w as eq uit abl e and her

tes ti mony

w as cl ear , unc ontradi cte d, an d uneq u i v ocal , and therefore, the tr ial co urt di d notabus e i ts dis creti on. A . The Div ision of the C ommunity Estate The Tex as Fami ly Cod e re q uires the tr ial cour t to “o rd er a div is ion of the es tate of the p arti es in a manner

thatthe cour

t deems jus t and ri g ht, hav ing due re g ard for the r ig hts
o f e a c h p a rt y . . . .” T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 7

. 0 0 1 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 6 )

. W e r e v i e w t h e tr ial
cour t’ s d iv is ion of the prop erty in a div or ce decree unde r an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. M u r f f v
. M u r ff , 6 15 S. W .2d 6 96, 6 98 ( Tex . 198 1)

. “M athemati cal preci si on i n di v idi ng prop erty on d iv orce is usua lly not po ssible.” Id. at 700. W ide l ati tude and di sc re ti on rest s
w it h the tr ial co urt, and i t “ is empow er ed to us e i ts le gal k n ow led g e and it s h uman8

und erstan ding a nd e x perien ce.” Id. ; see Val lon e v . Va ll one , 6 4 4 S

. W

. 2 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 0 (T e x. 1982)

. W e w il l re v erse on appe al onl y i f the proper

ty di v is ion i s s o di spropor ti onate as to be mani festl y

unj ustand unfair

. Barna rd v. Barna rd , 133 S.W .3d 782 , 787 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 2004, pet. deni ed) ; Sm it h v . Sm it h , 22 S.W .3d 1 40, 1 43 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Dist.] 200 0, no pet. ). A tri al court is presum ed to have prop erly exercised its discretion in div idi ng the ass ets of a mar ri ag e. Mu rf f , 615 S.W .2d a t 699 ; see Saldana v. Saldana , 791 S.W .2d 316 , 319 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 0, no w rit). Communi ty

proper ty does not need to be div ide d eq ual ly , butthe div is ion mustbe eq uit abl e. S e e K

i m s e y v. Ki

m sey , 965 S. W .2d 6 90, 7 04 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 1998, pet. deni ed)

. In de ter mini ng w hether the div is ion of the c ommunit y es tate is eq uit abl e, t he tr ial
cour t may consi der

the follo w ing non-ex cl usi v e f act ors: ( 1) the spous es’ s c apaci ti es and abi li ti es; ( 2) benefit s that the p arty not at faul t w oul d hav e der iv ed from t he c onti nuati on of the m a r r i a g e ; ( 3 ) b u s i n e s s o p p o rt u n i t i e s ; ( 4 ) e d u c a t i o n ; ( 5 ) p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s o f the parti e s; (6) the re lat iv e financ ial co ndi ti ons and obl ig ati ons of the par ti es; ( 7) si z e of the separate e sta tes ; ( 8) the nature of the proper ty ; (9) di spar it ies i n ear nin g ca paci ti es and inc ome; ( 10) the fault o f the breakup of the mar ri ag e; an d ( 11) a n y was ti n g of the communi ty

as set s b y

one of the s pouse s. Mu rf f , 6 1 5 S .W .2 d at 698- 99; see Garcia v. Garcia , 170 S.W .3d 644, 653 (Tex

. App.–E l Paso 2005, no pet .) ; see also Combe-Ovadia v. Co mb e-Ovad

ia , No

. 1 4 -0 4 -0 1 0 2 8 -C V , 2 0 0 6 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 6 8 4 4 , a t** 5 -6 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] Au g. 3 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) (m e m
. o p .) (cit in g Schlueter v. Schlu eter

, 975 S. W .2d 5 84, 5 89 ( Tex . 199 8) ; Mu rf f , 615 S.W .2d a t 699 ). B. Discuss ion Appel lan t, rel y ing heav il y on the int erest ed w it ness r ule as outl ine d i n Ragsdale v. Pr ogr essiv e V o ters League , as ser

ts that appel lee ’s tes ti mony w as unreason abl e and ri ddl ed w it h i ncons is tenc ies a n d , t her efore, did no more tha n rais e a facti ss ue to be deter mined by

the fact finder w it h re spec t to t he di v is ion of the c ommunit y es tate. See 801 S.W .2d 8 80, 8 82 ( Tex . 199 0) ( “I t is th e g eneral ru le that the t est imony of an i nterest ed9

w it ness , s uch as a p a rt y to the s uit , t houg h notco ntradi cte d, do es no more tha n rais e a fa cti ss u e t o b e d e te rm in e d by th e ju ry.”) (c it in g Mc Gi ll iar d v . Ku hlm ann , 722 S.W .2d 6 94 (Te x . 198 6); C ochr

an v . Wool G ro wers

C ent. Stor

age C o. , 140 Tex . 184 , 166 S.W .2d 9 04, 908 ( 1942) ). Ap pel lan t, how ev er , fail ed to note the f o llo wing ex cept ion to the i nterest ed
w it ness r ule : But there i s an ex cept ion to thi s ru le, w hic h i s t hat w her e the tes ti mony of an int er este d w it ness i s n ot c ontradi cte d by any othe r w it ness , or

att endant ci rc ums t a n c e s , a n d t h e s a me i s c l e a r , d i r e c ta n d p o s i t i v e , a n d fre e from cont ra dic ti on, i nacc ur aci es, and ci rc umstan ces tend ing to cas t s uspi ci on t h e re o n , itis t a k e n a s t ru e , a s a m a t t e r o f la w.

. . . . The ex cept ion to [thi s] int er est ed w it ness r ule

. . . i s e spec ial ly tr ue w her e the o p p o s in g p a rt y h a s t h e m e a n s a n d o p p o rt u n it y o f d is p ro vin g t h e t e s t im o n y, if it is nottrue, an d fails to do so

. . . . I n oth er words, failure to co ntrad ict is ano the r facto r to be consid ered by the court; but it doe s n o t n e c e ssarily preclu d e t he h olding tha t a fact issue is raised w hen . . . there are ci rc umstan ces i n ev ide nce tendi ng to dis credi t or i mpeach the t est imony of the intereste d w itness. Id. (cit in g McGilli

ard , 722 S.W .2d a t 694 ; Anch or Cas. Co. v. Bowers , 393 S.W .2d 1 68, 169- 70 ( Tex . 196 5) ; Cochr an , 166 S.W .2d a t 908 ) (b ra ck et i n or ig ina l)

. Here, ap pel lan t present ed no ev ide nce cont ra dic ti ng appel lee ’s tes ti mony and does notdirect us to an y

ev iden ce in the record cont radicting app ellee’s te stimo ny. On crossex aminat ion , app ell ant’ s c ounse l did referenc e appel lan t’ s e mploy ment c ontractthat w as pur por tedl y w orth $6 7,295, but thi s c ontractw as nev er ente re d i nto e v ide nce. I n rev iew ing app ellee’s te stimo ny f rom th e March 10, 200 8 f inal he aring, w e cann ot say thatapp ellee’s testim ony is so un reaso nab le or inconsiste nt as to mere ly ra is e a f act issue , espe cially
cons ide ri ng thatappel lan t had numerous oppor tuni ti es t o t e n d e r

e v i d e n c e t h a t

c o ntradi cte d appel lee ’s tes ti mony

and appel lan t w as affo rded the oppor tuni ty to cross -e x amine appel lee

. See i

d. W e the refore con clude thatthe exceptio n to th e inte rested w itness rule appl ies i n thi s c ase. See i d. Fur ther , ev en i f the ev ide nce merel y rais ed a fact i ss ue, a s app ellant suggests, the trial court w as em powered to e v alua te th e w eight of the evidence
as the factf ind er

in thi s c ase, and w e mustdefer to t ri al cour t’ s resol uti on of the ev ide nce.10

See O ’Car

ola n v . Hopper

, 71 S.W .3d 5 29, 5 33 n .4 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, no p et.) (stating thatthe fa ct f inde r is the sole j udge of the w eight and credibility of the evidence ). In an y ev ent , app ellee te stif ied th at ap pellan t ma de $ 74, 000 p e r ye a r unde r his
em ploymen t cont ract and thathe usu ally re c e ive d a b o nus a t the end of ev eryy ear. Appel lee furth er

tes ti fied t h a t app ell ant t old her thathe made “ 100- and- so- [thou sand] a y ear,” w hich presu ma bly accou nte d for app ellant ’s salary und er the co ntractand his y early bon us, and that app ellant ’s salary w as non -taxable beca use it w as e a rn e d o ve rseas. App ellee n ote d tha t: (1) app ellant sent her $1,50 0 per mont h for six to eight mo nth s, w hich
w as sup pose d to be used to ma ke the hou se payme nt and for support of R.L.; (2) she is the primary caregiv er for R.L.; an d (3) appe llant only returns to the Unite d Sta tes a cou ple ti mes a y e a r

fo r a fe w d a y s
. W i t h re s p e c tt o t h e i t e ms c o n t a i n e d i n t h e h o u s e , a p pel lee state d tha t mo st of

the item s w ere gifts to her f rom a ppe llant bu t tha t som e of the gifts w ere it ems fro m ov erseas and that she thoug ht ap pel lan t s houl d hav e the m. A ppel lee furth er clarif ied th at ap pellan t shou ld have the followi ng items: Jew elr y ; he has some gu n s; some ammo; he has a c oll ect ion of Cac hin a dolls; liquor; and w ine bo ttles; sh ot glasses; he has de corative plates, w hich are pl at es t ha t j us t, y ou k no w , ho w — th ats ay

w he r e th ey ’ r e fr om
.

. . . . A co m p u te r chai r; hi s c lot hin g ; r ug s; some c urtai ns; hi s a ir heads ; he’ s g ot a l ot of justlik e souv eni rs f ro m w her e he’ s b een; T-s hir ts; st uff l ik e tha t; the safe; t he c ry sta l w ine g lass e s t hat h e has ; and of course a s hel f that he made bac k i n—w hen he w as in hig h s chool

. Appel lee al so tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t s houl d be aw arded t he tr uck thathe w as dr iv ing and that she shoul d get t h e h o use, so me cha ndel iers, a c hin a s et, the v ehi cl e tha t s he w as dr iv ing , and al l re maini ng i tems the c oupl e ow ned and w er e notex pli cit ly re f e renced by appel lee

. On c ro ss -e x am ina ti on, a ppel lee admi tted that her tes ti mony

thatappel lan t made “1 00- a n d -so -[thous and] a y ear” w as based so lel y on w hat h e had tol d her w hen he w as app ly ing to exten d his em ploymen t cont ract. Ap p e llee de nied ev er seeing app ellant ’s cont ra ct but recal led thatsh e had been t old by her couns el that appel lan t’ s c ontractw as11

for $67, 295. Appel lee deni ed us ing the couple’s j o in t b ank acc ount once appel lan t had filed for d iv o rce
. A p p e llee test ified that : (1 ) the c oupl e boug ht t he hous e i n Sept ember 2001 for $89, 000; (2 ) the money used to mak e the hous e pay ments w as ear ned by both her an d ap pellan t; (3) the re is $10, 000 in equity in the ho use; and (4) the mo nth ly hou se pay ment i s $ 1,092. Appelle e l ater

tes ti fied to the follo w ing reg ardin g the house : “The house i s u nder my nam e. And he w as pa y ing for the hou se be cause he ha d told me, I’ll pay fo r the ho use and y ou pay

ev er ythi ng el se, i s w hat I ’m d oin g .” Ap pel lee al so tes tified th at s he has $90,000 i n her

reti re ment ac countfrom tw enty -t hr ee y ears o f ser v ic e as a s chool teac her and t hat a ppel lan t has a reti re ment accou nt f ro m w hic h he has re peatedl y w it hdraw n and that has an unk now n bal ance. B a s e d o n a p p e ll e e ’s t e s t im o n y, we co n c lu d e t h a tt h e re wa s su f f ic ie n tp ro b a t ive
ev ide nce from w hic h the tri al cour t coul d concl ude that a dis propor ti onate div is ion of the communi ty

estate w as jus t and rig ht, and w e cannot say , as appe ll ant s ug g est s, that the
rec o rd b e fore us de mo nstrat es tha t the trial court’s div ision of the com mu nity esta te is manifest ly

unj ustor unfair

. See Mur

ff , 615 S.W .2d a t 698 -9 9; Barna rd , 133 S.W .3d a t 787 ; Sm it h , 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d at 14 3; see als o Handley v. Han dle y , 1 2 2 S

. W

. 3 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 7 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ; O’Car ola n , 71 S.W .3 d a t 5 3 3 n.4. F urther more, b e c a u s e a p p e l l a n tfa i l e d t o p a rt i c i p a t e i n d i s c o v e r y a s o rd e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt , w e a r e l e ft
w it h a record tha t i s d ev oid of ev ide nce cont ra dic ti ng appel lee ’s tes ti mony and ov er comi ng the p re sumpti on th at t he tr ial co urt proper ly ex er ci sed it s d is creti on i n di v idi ng the ass ets of a marr iag e. See M ur ff , 6 15 S. W .2d 696 , 699 (Tex. 1981 ); se e al so Saldana , 791 S.W .2d a t 319

. Thus, w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s first is sue. IV. C HI LD S UP P ORT In his seco nd issue , app ellantasserts tha t the trial court abu sed its discretio n in cal cul ati ng ch il d s uppor t and re troact iv e chi ld suppo rt

. Spec ific all y , app ell ant a rg ues that the trial court’s aw ard of $1,0 00 p er mo nth in child supp ort is not sup porte d by credib le12

ev ide nce. A . A pp licab le L aw A tr ial co urt has dis creti on to est abl is h c hil d s uppor t w it hin the parameters s et ou t in the c hil d s uppor

t g uid eli nes of the Tex as Fami ly C ode. Rod

ri guez v. R odr igu ez , 860 S.W .2d 414, 415 ( Tex . 199 3) ; Scott v . Yo unts , 926 S.W .2d 415, 419 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1996, w ri t den ied ). A tr ial co urt’ s o rd e r o f ch il d s uppor

t w il l not b e di stu rb ed on appeal unless the compl ain ing party can show

a cl ear abuse of di sc re ti on. Rod

ri guez , 860 S.W .2d at 41 5; W

or for d v . St am per , 801 S.W .2d 108 , 109 (Tex. 1990 ); O f f ic e o f t h e A tt ’y Gen . v. Buh rle , 210 S.W .3d 714 , 717 (Tex. A pp. –Corpu s Christi 200 6, pe t. de nied ); se e In re M.K.R. , 216 S.W .3d 5 8, 61 ( Tex

. App.–F ort W orth 2007, no pet.) ( hol din g thati ss ues
re g ardin g the pay ment of chil d suppor

t, inc lud ing co nfir mati on of chi ld suppo rtar re ar ag e, are revi ewed und er an abuse of discretion stan dard ). In de term ining w het her the trial court abu sed its discretio n, w e v iew the evidence in the light mostfavorable to th e trial court’s act ion , i ndul g ing ev er

y presumpt ion i n fav or

of the j udg ment. Se e Zorilla , 8 3 S.W .3d a t 253; se e al

so W ar re n v . Warr en , No. 13- 05- 00429- CV , 2008 Tex

. App. LEX IS 1 859, at * 5 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ar . 13, 2008, no p et. ) (m e m
. o p.)

. If some probati v e and subs ta n t i v e e v i d e n c e s u p p o rt s t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u se it s dis creti on. Zorilla , 83 S.W .3d a t 253

. The tr ial cour

t may order eit her or both par ents to suppo rt a child in th e m a nner specif ie d b y

the order

. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 154. 001. In other w ords, eac h par

ty has a dut y to suppo rthi s o r her

min or ch il d. Id. § 15 1.001( b) ; see Vi ll aseno r v. Vi

ll aseno r , 911 S.W .2d 4 11, 4 19 ( Tex . Ap p.–San A n to n io 1995, no w ri t)

. Und er se cti on 154. 001, a tr ial
court m u s t o rd e r p a y me n t o f c h i l d s u p p o rt “ o n c e fi n a n c i a l n e e d a n d a b i l i t y t o p a y [ar e] esta blished .” Or

sak v. Or sak , 642 S. W .2 d 5 6 6 , 567 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1982, no w ri t) (ci ti n g Gr andi netti v. Gr andi netti , 600 S.W .2d 3 71, 3 72 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 198 0, no w rit)) . For purpose s of dete rmining child supp ort liability , the trial court shall cal cul ate n et resources , i ncl udi ng al l w ag e and sal ar y i ncome and ot her

co mpensat ion for13

personal se rv ic es, i nterest , di v ide nds and ro yal ty i ncome, se lf-e mploy ment i ncome, net
re ntal i ncome, and all othe r inc ome a ctuall y bei ng recei v ed. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 154.062 (a ), ( b) . Fur

ther , t here mustbe s ome ev ide nce in the record of a s ubst anti v e and probati v e c haract er

of net res our ces in order for thi s d uty to be di sc harg ed. New berry v. Boh n-New

berry , 146 S.W .3d 2 33, 2 36 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2004, no p et.)

. Mo re ov er , i n Gar

ner v. Gar

ner , t he D all as Cou rtof Appeal s n oted the fol low ing w it h
re spec t t o the ca lc ula ti on of chi ld suppo rt :

Chapter 154 of the Tex as Fami ly C ode es tabl is hes a mul ti ple -s tep proce ss for dete rmining the amo untof child su ppo rt. T he trial co urt mu st f irst det ermin e the parties’ gross incom e, net incom e, and m ont hly netresources. And, e a ch p a rt

y i s r equi re d to fur

nis h i nfor m ati on s uffici

ent to identi

fy the par ty’ s n et r esour ces and abi lity to pay suppor

t, such as produc ti

on of copie s of i ncom e tax

r etur ns, fi nanci al sta tem ents, and

pay stubs. After deter mini ng the a mount of netresou rc es, the tr ial co urt mus t dec ide w hether to appl y the chi ld support gui del ine s o r w hether appl ic ati on of the g uid eli nes w oul d be unj ustor i nappropr iat e. Impor

tantl y , a par ent’ s c hil d s uppor t obl ig ati on is not li mite d to that parent’ s a bil it y to pay from c ur re nt ea rn ing s; ra ther i t extends to his or her f inan cial abilityto pay from any and all available sources. See 200 S.W .3d 303 , 306 (Te x . App .–Dallas 2 006 , no pe t.) (emp hasis ad ded ); se e also Santi ll an v . C am pos , No

. 0 4

- 0 8

- 0 0 9 0 4 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 8 3 0 1 , a t** 8 -9 (T e x. App .–S an An ton io Oct. 21 , 200 9, no pet. h.) (mem . op. ). B. Discuss ion Appel lan t onc e ag ain arg ues that appel lee ’s tes tim ony w as inc onsi ste nt an d
unr eli abl e and the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on by rely ing on h er

tes ti mony

i n c alc ula ti ng chi ld suppo rtand aw ardin g appel le e re t roact iv e c hil d s uppor t. Appel lan t furt her

arg ues that
acc ordin g to the chi ld suppo rttabl es promulg ated by the Tex as Atto rn ey

Gene ra l’ s O ff ic e, his ch il d s uppor

t obl ig ati on s houl d hav e been onl y $775. 89 per

month ra ther

than $1,0 00 per month. How ever, in making his arg um ent s, app ellantreferen ces evidence n ot in the record before u s, inc lud ing the pur por ted e mploy ment con tract , a tax retur n al leg edl y

fil ed by app ellant showing taxable i ncom e of $48 ,00 0, and a rev ised calculation of ch il d supp ort app aren tly

base d on the child supp ort tab les prom ulgated by the T exas Atto rney General’s14

Off ic e. See G onzale z

v. Vi ll ar re al , 251 S.W .3d 763, 777 n.17 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. dis m’d w .o.j .) ( hol din g thatthe attac hm e n t of doc uments as ex hib it s o r appendi ces to appel lat e br iefs is not formal inc lus ion i n the record on appeal and therefore, the d ocument s c annot be c onsi dered) ; see a lso Nguye n v. Inte rtex, Inc. , 93 S.W .3d 2 88, 293 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2002, no pet.) ( same)

. Fur ther more, des pit e
numerous oppor

tuni ti es to do so , app ell ant fai led to prov ide any ev ide nce to refute t he tes ti mony

of a p p e lle e r e gardin g hi s i ncome. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 154. 063( 1) (p ro v idi ng thateac h par ty i s req uired to prov ide the tr ial co urt w it h i nformati on s uff ic ien t t o
acc u ratel y

i denti fy the p arty ’s net re sources and abi li ty to pay ch il d s uppor

t) ; see a lso Gar ner , 200 S.W .3d a t 306

. As pr ev iou sl y note d, ap pel lee tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t made at lea st $74,000 per y ear in inc ome and that he has tol d her that h e m a d e “10 0 -a nd- so- [thou sand] a y ear” once bonus es and other inc ome sources w er e ac count ed for. The t ri al court, in the f inal divorce decree, conclud ed th at ap pellan t w as respo nsible for $1,0 00 in monthl y ch il d s uppor

t and w as $7,800 in ar re ars i n pay ing ch il d s uppor t. As w e hav e al re ady

co ncl uded, appel lee ’s tes ti mony w as not co n f u sing or inc onsi ste nt, and w e appl ied the ex cept ion to the int er est ed w it ness ru le. See Ragsda le , 801 S. W .2d a t 882

. Fur ther , as the fact finder , t he tr ial cour t w eig hed t he ev ide nce, and
w e mustdefer to the f actfinder ’s resol uti on of the ev ide nce. See O’Car ola n , 71 S.W .3d at 53 3 n.4. Beca use appel lee ’s testi mony reg ardin g appell ant’ s inc ome prov ide d the tr ial
cour t w it h infor mati on re g ardin g appel lan t’ s n et resources and becau se appel lan t fail ed to prov ide ev ide nce re futing appel lee ’s tes ti mony reg ardin g hi s n et resources , w e c oncl ude t h a ta p p e l l e e ’ s t e s t i mo n y re g a rd i n g a p p e l l a n t ’ s s a l a r y c o n s t i t u t e s “ s o me e v i d e n c e o f a subst ant iv e an d prob ative chara cter of net resou rces” and ap pellan t’s abilityto pay child suppo rt

. Newbe rry, 146 S.W .3d a t 236 ( ci ti ng T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 154. 062) ; see Zorilla , 8 3 S. W .3 d at 253. T hus, w e con clude thatthe trial court did not ab use its discretio n in
aw ardin g appel lee $1,0 00 per month i n c hil d s uppor t. See R odr

igu ez , 860 S.W .2d a t 415 ; W orford , 801 S.W .2d a t 109 ; see also Bu hrle , 2 1 0 S .W .3 d at 717; In re M.K.R. , 21615

S.W .3d 5 8, 61 ; No rdstro mv. Nor dst ro m , 965 S.W .2d 575 , 578 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 199 7, pe t. de nied ). Appel lan t al so chal len g es the a w ard of $7,800 i n retroact iv e c hil d s uppor t, but h e does not mak e a c lea r and c onci se arg ument for hi s c ontent ion thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is c re t io n , n o r d o e s h e ci t e t o ca s e la w in su p p o rto f h is co n t e n t io n
. As a re s u lt , we
conc lud e tha t app ell ant h as ina deq uately b rie f e d thi s s ub- is sue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ( “The [appel lan t’ s] br ief mustc o ntai n a c lea r and c onci se arg ument for the cont enti ons made, w it h appropr iat e cit ati ons to author it ies and to t he record.” ). Therefore,
w e ov er ru le appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. V. V I S I TA TI ON In his third issue , app ellantargues thatthe t ri al court ab used its discretion in depr iv ing hi m of reas onabl e v is it ati on w it h R .L. Spec ific all y , appel lan t as ser ts that the t ri al
cour t er ro neous ly

reli ed upon appel lee ’s tes ti mony , w hic h w as not credi ble and ri ddl ed w it h inc onsi ste nci es, and tha t the v is it ati on order w as “d ra coni an.” Ap pel lee co unters b y arguing that the trial court did not ab use its discretio n in derivi ng its v isitation order beca use her tes ti mony

at the Ma rc h 10, 2008 hear ing w as uneq uiv ocal and unc ontradi cte d and that the e v ide nce adduc ed atthe hear ing demonstrated that: (1) appel lan t rar ely v is it s R .L.; ( 2) appel lan t and R .L. do nothav e a b ond; (3 ) R. L. do es n o t wish to spend ni g hts w it h appel lan t; and ( 4) appel lan t doe s n ot i ntend to resi de i n the U nit ed St ates

. A . A pp licab le L aw Tri a l cour

ts ar e afforded w ide di sc re ti on i n maki ng dete rmi nati ons of cust ody poss ess ion and v is it ati on. In re C.R.T. , 61 S.W .3d 62, 65 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o 2001, pet. d e n i e d ) (cit in g Gillespie v. Gillespie , 6 4 4 S

. W

. 2 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 1 ( Te x
. 1 9 8 2 ) )

. A b u s e of the
cour t’ s d is creti on i s s how n onl y w hen i t ac ts w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s o r act s
a rb it ra rily

or unreason abl y
. Id. Our review mustalso giv e de feren ce to th e trial court becau se iti s in the best posi ti on to observ e the demeanor of the w it ness es and ev alu ate thei r credi bil it y
. In re De la Pena , 999 S.W .2d 521 , 526 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 19 99, no pe t.).16

An abu se of dis creti on ordin ar il y does not occ ur w hen the tr ial cour t bases i ts deci si on on confli cti ng ev ide nce. See In r e K. R. P. , 80 S.W .3d 6 69, 6 74 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 2, pe t. de nied ). Mo re ov er , t he ev ide nce need no t be compel li ng or c o n clu sive to suppo rt the tr ial cour

t’ s ex er ci se of dis creti on. See Holley v. Hol ley, 864 S.W .2d 7 03, 7 06 (Tex . App .– Ho u st on [1 st Di st. ] 199 3, w ri t den ied ) (h old ing thatthere w as no abus e of dis creti on i f some ev ide nce of a s ubst anti v e and probati v e c haract er su ppor ted t he decision ); se e al

so Stev ens v. Stev

ens , N o. 03 -9 8- 00687- CV , 199 9 Tex . App. LE X IS 6 334, at *6 (T ex. App.–Aust in Aug. 26, 199 9, no pet. ) ( me m. op.). The besti n te re st of the c hil d i s a lw ay s t he pr imar y co nsi derati on i n det er mini ng is sues of cons er

v atorshi p and poss ess ion

. T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 153 .00 2 (Verno n 20 08). "It is the pol ic y

of thi s s tate to en courag e freq uent cont act betw een a chi ld and eac h parent for per iod s o f posse ss ion thatopti miz e the d e velo p ment of a c los e and cont inu ing
re lat ion shi p betw een eac h parent a nd c hil d." Id. § 153 .25 1(b) (Vernon 200 8). Yet, there is no req uirement t hat j oin t managi ng co nser v ators b e aw arded eq ual or near ly eq ual per iod s o f posse ss ion

. Id. § 15 3.135 (V er non 200 8) ; G a r za , 217 S.W .3d a t 552

. B. Discuss ion The cr ux of appel lan t’ s c omplai nt pe rt ain ing to v is it ati on is that the tr ial co urt reli ed sol ely upon appel lee ’s tes ti mony , w hic h w as all eg edl y unrel iab le and i ncons is tent. H er e, appel lee tes ti fied th at ap pel lan t had co nti nual ly w or ked in Afgha nis tan si nce R. L. w as four y ears o ld. Sh e f urther

testi fied that as a re sul t of appell ant’ s absenc e, ap pel lan t and R .L. did no t have a bon d an d tha t R.L. did n ot w ish to spe nd the night w ith ap pellan t. She did
no t e t h a ta p p e l l a n tu s u a l l y re t u r n e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o v i s i tR

. L

. tw i c e a y e ar —for Christma s and R.L.’s birthda y —and thatapp ellanthad only misse d one of R.L.’s birthda y s. How ev er , app ell ee recal led the follo w ing w it h respec t t o the appel lan t’ s v is it s w it h R .L.: Q [A p p e l l e e ’ s c o u n s e l ] : W he n he h as c om e do w n an d v i s i t s w i t h h i m, does he s pend al l the t ime w it h hi m or not? A [A p p e l l e e ] : No

. I w o u l d s a y l i k e ma y b e 15 mi nutes , y ou know , i n the mor nin g ; 15 minut es may be i n the afternoo n pl ay ing vi deo games

. But the maj or ity17 of the ti me he’ s [ appel lan t] on his co mputer on his l ap[ ] top. She al so noted that appel lan t ex pr ess ed to her that he had no int enti on of mov ing back to the United St ate s. As noted ear li er , w e c annot say that app e lle e ’s tes ti mony

i s i ncons is tent or
u n re li a b le

. Mo re o ve r, a s t h e fa c tf in d e r, t h e t ri a l c o u rtwa s in t h e b e s tp o s it io n t o o b s e rve the d emeanor

of appel lee and deter mine her credi bil ity ; t hus, w e m u st d e f e r to t he tr ial
cour t’ s resol uti on of the ev ide nce. See In r e D e l a Pena , 999 S.W .2d a t 526

. W e now turn to appell ant’ s conte nti on that the v is it ati on order w as “d ra coni an.” I n
re v iew ing the por

ti on of t he final div or ce decree re g ardin g v is it ati on, the t ri al cour t g ra nted
a s tandard v is it ati on order w it h the foll ow ing addi tio n a l re q uirement, w hic h appel lan t app ears to co mp lain ab outon ap pea l:

There w il l not b e any

ov er nig ht visit ati on betw een [ appel lan t] and [R .L.] a s l o n g a s [ a p p e l l a n t ] i s e mp l o y e d o u t s i d e o f t h e U n i t e d S t ates of Amer ic a. After [appel lan t] ret ur ns to li v e in the Unit ed States of Amer ic a and per manentl y

es tabl is hed [ si c] his re si dence in the Uni ted S tates of Amer ic a, sta ndard ov er nig ht v is it ati on w il l be al low ed. Ear li er i n the decree, the tr ial cour t noted that there w as credi ble ev ide nce pr esent ed th at: (1 ) appel lan t had prev iou sl y threatened to tak e aw ay appel lee ’s r ig ht t o ac ces s R .L.; ( 2) appel lan t l ack s fin anci al re a so n t o st ay i n the U nit ed St ates ; ( 3) appel lan t has st ro ng “fin anci al, emoti onal , or cu lt ur al ti es to an other co untr y ” w her e he is empl oy ed; a nd ( 4) appel lan t l ack s s trong ti es to t he U nit ed St ates

. Thus, the t ri al cour t prohi bit ed appe ll ant f rom ta king R .L. o utside the Unite d Sta tes. On ap peal , app e lla n t cit es the fol low ing st atements made by the tr ial co urt atthe hear ing on a ppel lee ’s emerg ency moti on to modify v is it ati on in arg uin g that the v is it ati on orde r w as “dracon ian”: T he im porta n t thing here, R.L. , is, like I said, und erstan d tha t the conf lict betw een y our

mom and y our

dad is the confli ct betw een y our mom and y our d a d

. It ’s n o tyo u
. A n d yo u r m o m wa n t s wh a t ’s b e s tfo r yo u
. An d I b e li e ve firml y thaty our daddy does, too. Y ou know , w or k w it h i t. W or k w it h i t. And lety our dad know

y ou l ov e hi m, too

. He’ s y our dad. And mom k now s y ou l ov e her , t oo. Dad is may be tr y ing to make u p18

for l ostti me bec ause y ou hav e been—b e ca use he’ s b een aw ay
. And y ou hav e to appreci ate t he f a ct thatbec ause he’ s b een aw ay w or ki ng , may be he’ s b een abl e to prov ide a li ttl e bit better liv ing for yo u and y our

m om. A nd I don ’tthi nk there w as any i ss ue here w it h the C our t t hat h e has not been a prov ide r for th e famil y

i n the pas t. Appel lan t t hen s tates that“ [i ]t is di ff ic ultto env is ion a s ing le g uid ing pr inc ipl e reli ed upon by the tr ial co urt, inc lud ing the ‘b esti nterestof the c hil d’ sta ndard, after rev iew ing the
re cord of hi s sol il oq uy
. . . w here he deni ed s tandard v is it ati on to [app ell ant] unti l he resi des perm ane ntly in the United St ate s.” How ev er , i n rev iew ing appel lan t’ s a rg uments and the record on appeal , w e c annot sayt h a t th e t rial c our

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n render ing i ts v is it ati on order

. See In re C.R.T. , 61 S.W .3d a t 65; see als o Holley , 864 S.W .2d a t 706 . W e f ind th at th e trial court
w as re asona ble i n i mposi ng a re str ic ti on on appel lan t w it h re spec t to ov er nig ht v is it s g iv en appel lan t’ s desi re to remain ov erseas , often i n l ocal es mired i n v iol ence. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 153. 001( a) (2 ) (V er non 2008 ) (p ro vi din g that , among othe r thi ng s, iti s t he publ icpol ic y

of thi s s tate to “ prov ide a s afe, st abl e, an d nonvi ole nt enviro n m e n t for

the
c h i l d

. . . ” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Be c a u s e t h e t ri a l c o u rtd id n o ta b u s e it s d is c re t io n , we
ov er ru le appel lan t’ s t hird i ss ue. VI. A P P E LL A NT ’ S M OT I ON FO R C ONT I NUA NCE In hi s fou rth i s s ue , ap pe l l an t arg ue s th at th e tr i al c ou rt ab us ed i ts di s c r et i on in d e n ying t h e ora l m o ti o n fo r co n ti n u a n ce h e m a d e a t th e M a rch 10 , 2 0 0 8 f in a l h e a rin g. The g ra nti ng of a c onti nuanc e rest s w ith in t h e so und di sc re ti on of the tr ial co urt. See BMC Soft ware Bel

g., N. V. v

. M ar chand , 83 S.W .3d 789, 800 ( Tex . 200 2) ; see a lso McClure v. Atte bury , 20 S.W .3d 722, 729 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o 1999, no p et.) ( hol din g thatal l cour ts hav e i nherent p ow er

to g ra nt or

deny a c onti nuanc e) ; Humph re y v. Ahl schla ger , 778 S.W .2d 4 80, 4 82 (Tex

. App.–D all as 1989, no w ri t)

. A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on w hen itreache s a dec is ion so ar bit ra ry and unr eason abl e tha t i t a m o unts to a c lea r and pr eju dic ial er ro r of law

. BMC Software , 83 S.W .3d a t 800

. In his no tice of

app eal, a ppe llant sta ted thathe w as solely appea ling the trial court’s19

August 4, 200 8 de nial of his mot ion for new t ri a l. Ho we v er, on a ppe al, ap pellan t also
com p la in s a b o u t the trial court’s denia l of his oral mot ion for contin uan ce. Beca use app ellantex presse d in his not ice of app eal th at he w as on ly app eal in g t h e trial court’s den ial of his mo tion fo r new trial, w e focus our rev iew solely on th e con ten ts of app ellant ’s
mo tion for new trial and th e trial court’s evaluatio n of the m otion rather tha n ap pellan t’s
extraneous arg uments per tai nin g t o t h e t ri al cour t’ s d eni al of his oral moti on for cont inu ance. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1( d) (2 ) (req uir ing appel lan t to spec ify the date of the jud g ment or

order appeal ed from) ; see a lso Parrish v. Ruthe rford , 159 S.W .3d 1 14, 1 17 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2004, no p et.) ( h o ld in g tha t an is sue w as not p re ser v ed for appeal bec ause appel lan ts’ noti ce of ap p e a l f ail ed to sp eci fy the o rd er from w hic h the pur por ted i ss ue arose)

. Ev en as sumi ng , arg uendo, that appel lan t had proper lyp re ser v ed th is i ss ue for app eal, w e not e tha t the record does not cont ain an af f idavit demo nstrat ing suf f icient cau se for hi s req uest ed c onti nuanc e. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 251 (“ No app lication fo r a con tinua nce shal l be heard before the defendant fil es his defense, nor sh all any

co nti nuanc e be g ra nted
ex cept for suffici ent caus e suppo rt ed by aff ida v it , or by cons ent of t he p a rt ie s, or by operati on of l aw .” ); see als o Math e w v. McC oy , 8 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d 3 9 7 , 3 9 9 -4 0 0 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1993, no w ri t) ( h o ld in g tha t a moti on for cont inu ance must be
v er ified and that the c our t of appeal s mus t presume the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts d isc re ti o n in d e n ying a m o ti o n fo r co n ti n u a n ce th a t w a s no t v e rif ie d ) ( c i t i n g Villega s v. Car ter , 711 S.W .2d 624, 626 (Tex . 198 6) ; City o f Housto n v. Blackbird , 658 S.W .2d 2 69, 2 7 2 (T e x. A p p
. – Ho u s t o n [ 1 s tDi s t

. ] 1 9 8 3 , wri td is m ’ d ) )

. Ba s e d o n t h e fo re go in g, we
ov er ru le appel lan t’ s four th i ss ue. VII. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e hav e c oncl uded t hat t he tr ial co urt’ s d iv is ion of the communi ty

es tate and calculatio n of

child supp ort, retroa ctiv e child sup port, and v isitation w ere reaso nab le and s uppor

ted b y some ev ide nce of s ubst anti v e and probati v e c haract er , w e c annot say20

that the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing appell ant’ s motion for n ew tr ial

. See In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d a t 114 ; Ricks , 1 6 9 S.W .3d a t 526 ; s e e a l s o G a r za , 217 S.W .3d a t 549; Zorilla , 83 S.W .3d a t 252 n.1

. T h er efore, hav ing ov er ru led al l of appell ant’ s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 17th day of Dec ember , 200 9.