A per spect i v e f r om a chi l d of a br oken hom e. 1 NO. 07-09 -018 0-CV

IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C AU GU ST 10, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ In re B RI AN FRE EM AN BA RK L EY, Rel ator

_________

_________

_________

_____ Origina l Proce eding on Mandamus

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.

If Mo mand Dad

want to pl

ay pin g pong, sobe it; I just don ’

t wa nt tobe the ball. 1 Pendi ng before the c our t i s a n appl ic ati on from B ri an F re eman Bar kl ey for a w ri t of ma nda mu s . The mat ter spawns f rom th e divorce between Ba rkley and Megan Doz ier. Du rin g th e m a rria ge, th e two h a d on e ch ild w h o is t h e in d ire ctsu bje ctof th is p ro ce e d in g. Bot h pa rents were appo inted the child’s jointma n a gi n g conse rv ato rs. D ozier, how ever, w as author iz ed to des ig nate the c hil d’spri mary resi dence so long as it w as w it hin Potter or R andal l Cou nty
. Ev entual ly , D oz ier m ov ed to Cottl e County w it h the chi ld and pet it ion ed to ha v e the Potter/Ra n dal l g eog ra phi c rest ri cti on modi fied. In t ur n, B ar kl ey so ug ht sanct ions an d an order hold ing her in contem pt. Via a “tem pora ry orde r,” Dozi er was he ld2

in cont em pt bu t f reed f rom limitin g the child’s primary residen ce to eith er Pott er or Randa ll count ies
. The tr ial co urt al lowed her to desi g nate a pr imar

y re si dence w it hin 150 mil es of tho se cou nties. Tha t resulted in Barkley pet itioning for ma nda mu s. Frankl y , we do not know of t he par ti cul ar re li ef s oug ht by

Bar kl ey . He dis putes the va li d it y o f

t h e t ri a l c o u rt ’s “t e m p o ra ry o rd e r” a n d p o s it s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtsh o u ld n o th a ve condu cte d a h ear ing
. Y et, ins tead of sug g est ing w hat we s houl d directthe tr ial co urt t o do, he s impl y

as ks thathi s p eti ti on be g ra nted and t hat h e be aw ard e d s u ch o th er reli ef to w hic h he maybe e nti tl ed. De spi te thisomiss ion , w e assume that he w ants us to directthe tr ial co urt t o w it hdraw

i ts “t emporar

y ord e r. ” W e d e n y

the inv it ati on to do s o for sev eral reaso ns. Re ga rd in g h is f irs tco m p la in t , B a rk le y s u gge s t s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtsh o u ld n o th a ve hel d a h ear ing on D oz ier’s req uestto broaden t h e g eog ra phi c rest ri cti on bec ause she neglecte d to atta ch an af f idavit to h er p etition . Purporte dly, §15 6.1 02 o f the T exas Family Cod e req uired her

to d o s o a s a prereq uis it e to re cei v ing an e v ide nti ar y hear ing
. That sta tute appl ies to act ion s w herein one “s eek[ s] to modi fy the d esi g nati on of t he person hav ing the ex cl usi v e ri g ht to desig nate the pri mary resi dence of

a chi ld” and obl ig ates the peti ti oner

to “e x ecut e and attac h an aff ida vit” to the peti ti on. T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . §15 6 .10 2(a) (Vernon 200 8). Additio nally, the af f idavit must con tain o ne o r more all eg ati ons it em ized i n the sta tute. Thos e al leg ati ons alo ng w it h the pur por ted fact s acc ompany ing them are the i ndi ci a to be us ed by the t ri al cour t t o det er mine w hether

an ev i d e n t i a r

y h e a r i n g i s w a r ra n t e d
. Th a t i s , i f t h e a ffi d a v i t c o n t a i n s “ fa ct s a d e q u a t e to supp ort” one or mo re of the requisite stat uto ry allegations, then the trial court m ust sc hedul e the matte r for hear ing
. If not, then itmay not. Id . §15 6.102( c)
.3

W hether a pe ti ti on to ex pand g eog ra phi c rest ri cti ons li ke that in vol v ed here i s a n effort t o “modi fy the desi g nati on of the person hav ing the ex cl usi v e ri g ht t o des ig nate the pr imar y resi dence of a c hil d” i s s omethi ng w e need not address . This is so be caus e the is sue before us is moot. See In re H & R Block F ina nci al Advi sor s, Inc ., 262 S. W .3d 8 96, 900 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 2008, or ig
. proceed ing ) (s tati ng thatan i ss ue i s moot th w hen its resolut ion i s no longer relevant). As previously me ntion e d , t h e le gisl atu re spec ified thatthe aff ida v itwas to be us ed as a means of deter minin g w hether a he ar ing shou ld be he ld. Since th e trial court actu ally held the hea ring, w het her i t shou ld hold such a he a r i n g i s no lo n ger rel e van t. In d e e d , we a n a lo gize t h e sit u a ti o n to on e in volvin g a summar y j udg ment. If a t ri al cour t w as to g ra nt a par

ti al summar

y j udg ment i n abs ence of the n eces sar

y ev ide nti ar

y su ppor t butthen tr

y the same is sue and ent er j udg ment bas ed upon t he ev ide nce tendered at tr ial , it no lon g er matte rsw hether

the ev ide nce suppo rt ed the s ummary

j udg ment. This i s s o bec ause the is sue w as re sol v ed at tr ial as oppos ed to som e prelim inary proce d u re w hich exists fo r the pu rpose of assessing w het her a trial is nee ded . So, oth er than being an a c a d e m ice x ercise, it ma tters no t w het her evidence ex is ts to war ra n t a h e a rin g w hen t he c our t actual ly

hol ds the h ear ing and re sol v es the dis pute upon t he ev ide nce there ten dered. And, that happened here. Se co n d , b e ca u se th e tri a l co u rtco n ven e d th e afo re m e n ti o n e d evid e n ti a ry he a rin g, w e are precl uded fro m address ing Bar kl ey ’s second is sue. The las t encompas ses w hether the re w as som e evidence to supp ort the trial court’s decision to modif y the ge o gr a phic re str icti on. Beca use ev ide nce appears of record creati ng a fact is sue for th e tr ial co urt t o deci de ( e.g. Doz ier’s recentmar ri ag e to someone w ho l iv es and wor ks outs ide Potter and Ran dal l count ies ), w e c annot, throug h mandamus, add re ss w hether the ev ide nce w as4

suffici ent t o s uppor

t t hat d eci si on. See In re Acad ia Ins . C o., 2 7 9 S
. W
. 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 7 9 (T e x. App .–A ma rill o 20 07, orig. proceed ing) (holdin g tha t an ap pellat e cou rt canno t issue a w rit of mandamus w here the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on i s b ased upon di sput ed ev ide nce)
. Acc ordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s d eni ed.
Br ian Qui nn C hie f Just ic e