Affirmed and Memorandum Majority and Memorandum Concurring

Opinions filed May 7, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00751-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.M., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 312th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1999-37893 

M E M O R A N D U M M A J O R I T Y O P I N I O N 

 This is an appeal from income withholding orders for child support arrearages 

and attorney’s fees. Father contends that (1) “the trial court abused its discretion in 

the underlying order because the underlying relief has previously been litigated by 

the parties ending in a final judgment denying much of the requested relief in a 

binding arbitration proceeding;” and (2) “the trial court abused its discretion when 

[it] entered an order that identifies the payments as child support and authorizing 

wage withholding and a child support arrearage finding.” We affirm. 
2

BACKGROUND

Our recitation of the background of the case is constrained by the appellate 

record presented to us. We draw the following from the limited record. 

 Father and Mother divorced, and the trial court signed a Final Decree of 

Divorce in September 1999. Father and Mother went to arbitration, and a final 

arbitration award was issued in May 2012. In September 2012, the trial court signed 

an Order Modifying Final Decree Of Divorce Dated September 24, 1999 

Incorporating Final Arbitration Decision And Award. 

In May 2015, Mother filed a First Amended Motion To Enforce Additional 

Child Support Order By Contempt. She alleged that Father failed to make payments 

for their child C.M.’s health care expenses (payments for health insurance and 50% 

of uninsured health care expenses) as additional child support as required by the 

1999 Final Decree of Divorce and the 2012 Order Modifying Final Decree Of 

Divorce Dated September 24, 1999 Incorporating Final Arbitration Decision And 

Award. She alleged Father committed 181 separate violations of the 1999 Final 

Decree of Divorce and the 2012 Order Modifying Final Decree Of Divorce Dated 

September 24, 1999 Incorporating Final Arbitration Decision And Award when he 

failed to pay for C.M.’s health care expenses from 2005 to 2014. Mother stated: 

“[Father]’s total arrearage as of May 19, 2014 is $30,296.00, which includes cash 

medical support, uninsured health care expenses and interest. [Mother] requests 

confirmation of all arrearages and rendition of judgment plus interest on arrearages, 

as well as attorney’s fees, and costs incurred in this case. [Mother] requests the 

Court to order income withheld for the arrearages, attorney’s fees, costs, and 

interest.” 
3

In August 2015, Mother filed a Motion To Confirm Additional Child Support 

Arrearage. She essentially made the same allegations and requests contained in her 

First Amended Motion To Enforce Additional Child Support Order By Contempt. 

A hearing was held on March 1, 2017, but there is no reporter’s record of the hearing. 

The parties do not dispute that “the case was tried by stipulation.” 

On June 22, 2017, the trial court signed an Order On First Amended Motion 

To Enforce Additional Child Support Orders By Contempt For Failure To Pay Cash 

Medical Support And Reimbursement Of Uninsured Medical Expenses Granting 

Judgment For Arrearages (hereinafter, the “Order To Enforce Additional Child 

Support”). The order provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

6. FINDINGS 

The Court finds that [Father] was ordered to make periodic payments 

of cash medical support and reimbursement of uninsured medical 

expenses, in an order entitled Final Decree of Divorce entered by this 

Court on September 24, 1999, and in an order entitled Order Modifying 

Final Decree of Divorce dated September 24, 1999 incorporated [sic] 

Final Arbitration Decision and Award entered by this Court on 

September 21, 2012, that . . . states in relevant part as follows:

. . . ‘Health Insurance’ 

IT IS ORDERED that medical support shall be provided for the 

child as follows:

1. [FATHER]’s RESPONSIBILITY — . . . [FATHER] shall, 

at all times, provide medical support the for the child. IT IS 

THEREFORE ORDERED that, as additional child support, 

[FATHER] shall provide medical support for the parties’ child, 

for as long as child support is payable under the terms of this 

decree, as set out herein.

* * * 

3. INSURANCE THROUGH [MOTHER]’s EMPLOYMENT

. . . — . . . [FATHER] is ORDERED to pay to [MOTHER] . . . the 

cost of insuring the child on [Mother]’s health insurance plan, 

beginning on the first day of the month . . . . Currently medical 
4

reimbursement is $142.00 per month and [FATHER] is 

ORDERED to pay [MOTHER] $142.00 per month, as additional 

child support, on the first day of every month beginning on 

October 1, 1999, and continuing as long as child support is

payable under the terms of this Decree.

* * * 

11. PAYMENT OF UNINSURED EXPENSES — IT IS 

ORDERED that the party who pays for a health-care expense on 

behalf of the child shall submit to the other party, within ten days 

of receiving them, all forms, receipts, bills, and explanations of 

benefits paid reflecting the uninsured portion of the healthcare 

expenses the paying party incurs on behalf of the child. IT IS 

FURTHER ORDERED as additional child support that, within 

ten days after the nonpaying party receives the explanation of 

benefits stating benefits paid, that party shall pay his or her share 

of the uninsured portion of the health-care expenses . . . .

* * * 

The Court further finds that [Father] was ordered to reimburse 

[Mother] for fifty (50) percent of uninsured medical expenses incurred 

for the benefit of the child, [C.M.], in an order entitled Order Modifying 

Final Decree of Divorce dated September 24, 1999 incorporated Final 

Arbitration Decision and Award approved by this Court on September 

21, 2012, that . . . states in relevant part as follows:

. . . ‘Therefore, it is ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Final 

Arbitration Decision and Award by Shelly A. Merchant, dated 

May 2, 2012, copy attached as Exhibit ‘A’ and incorporated 

herein, becomes the Order of the Court and is given the full force 

of an Order of the Court, Modifying the Final Decree of Divorce 

dated September 24, 1999, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 

THAT: 

3. [MOTHER] shall continue to cover the health insurance 

on the child and each party shall pay 50% of the uninsured 

medical.’ 

7. CONTEMPT FINDINGS AND FINDINGS ON 

ARREARAGES 

Cash Medical Support 
5

The Court finds that the parties STIPULATED that [FATHER] 

did not pay the sum of $21,647.71 being reimbursement to [MOTHER]

for health insurance premiums, plus interest of $7,702.49 as of 

September 9, 2016, as set out in Exhibit ‘C’ . . . attached hereto and 

incorporated herein by reference . . . and

THEREFORE based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court 

accepted such stipulation as evidence in this case and entered the 

following ruling: 

The Court affirms and ORDERS that [FATHER] is in contempt 

on all violations plead for by [MOTHER], save and except for 

violations 78 through 100, which the Court DENIES are violations per 

the underlying order. 

The Court finds that [FATHER] has failed and refused to pay 

cash medical support as ordered to [MOTHER] directly . . . in the 

amounts and dates shown below: 

[listing violations 1 through 77]. 

The Court finds that the total cash medical support which 

[FATHER] has failed and refused to pay is $15,717.37, plus 

unconfirmed interest of $7,702.49 from the date such expense was 

incurred through September 9, 2016. 

Reimbursement of Uninsured Medical 

The Court finds that the parties STIPULATED that [FATHER] 

did not pay the sum of $5,067.89 being reimbursement to [MOTHER]

for health insurance premiums, plus interest of $1,476.55 as of 

September 9, 2016, as set out in Exhibit ‘D’ . . . attached hereto and 

incorporated herein by reference . . . and

THEREFORE based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court 

accepted such stipulation as evidence in this case and entered the 

following ruling: 

The Court affirms and ORDERS that [FATHER] is in contempt 

on all violations plead for by [MOTHER] are violations per the 

underlying order. 

The Court further finds that [FATHER] has failed and refused to 

reimburse [MOTHER] directly to [MOTHER] . . . fifty (50) percent of 

uninsured medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the child, [C.M.] 

in the amounts and on the dates shown below: 
6

 [listing violations 101 to 181]. 

The Court finds that the total reimbursement of uninsured 

medical expenses which [FATHER] has failed and refused to pay is 

$5,067.89.

* * * 

The Court finds and confirms that the balance owed by 

[FATHER] to [MOTHER] for the benefit of [C.M.] cash medical 

support as additional child support is $15,717.37, and that interest has 

accrued on those previously unconfirmed arrearages as of March 1, 

2017, in the amount of $7,027.82. 

The Court finds and confirms that the balance owed by 

[FATHER] to [MOTHER] for the benefit of [C.M.] reimbursement of 

uninsured medical expenses incurred for the benefit of the child, 

[C.M.], is $5,067.89, and that interest has accrued as of March 1, 2017, 

on those uninsured medical arrearages in the amount of $1,476.65. 

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Judgment should be 

awarded against [FATHER] in the TOTAL amount of $29,289.73 for 

the arrearages and interest, for unpaid cash medical support and unpaid 

reimbursement of uninsured medical expenses as additional child 

support. 

* * * 

Attorney’s Fees 

The Court finds that the parties STIPULATED that 

[MOTHER]’s reasonable and necessary attorney fees plus cost in 

bringing this motion to confirm additional child support arrearage in 

the amount of $13,213.66 as of September 12, 2016, as set out in

Exhibit ‘F’ . . . attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference . . 

. and

THEREFORE based on the stipulation of the parties, the Court 

accepted such stipulation as evidence in this case and entered the 

following ruling:

The Court affirms and ORDERS that [FATHER] pay attorney’s 

fees and costs of $11,464.17 for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in 

this case. 

The Court further finds that attorney’s fees should be withheld 

from [FATHER]’s earnings under a separate order for income 
7

withholding. 

* * * 

9. JUDGMENT FOR CASH MEDICAL AND 

REIMBURSEMENT OF UNINSURED MEDICAL 

IT IS ORDERED that [MOTHER] is granted a cumulative 

judgment for cash medical support and reimbursement of uninsured 

medical expenses, including accrued interest, against [FATHER] for 

the sum of TWENTY NINE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED 

EIGHTY-NINE AND 73/100’s DOLLARS ($29,289.73) . . . .

IT IS ORDERED that [FATHER] is obligated to pay and IS 

ORDERED to pay to [MOTHER] this judgment on the cash medical 

support and reimbursement of uninsured medical expenses at the rate 

of ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY 41/100’s 

DOLLARS ($1,220.41) per month . . . until twenty-four (24) months of 

full and complete payments have been withheld to satisfy the 

cumulative judgment awarded herein. . . . 

10. JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS COSTS 

IT IS ORDERED that [MOTHER’S ATTORNEY] is 

AWARDED a judgment for attorney’s fees as cost, against [FATHER] 

of ELEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR AND 

17/100’s DOLLARS ($11,464.17) . . . .

IT IS ORDERED that [FATHER] is obligated to pay and is 

ORDERED to pay to [MOTHER’S ATTORNEY] this judgment on the 

attorney’s fees as costs the sum of SIX HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN 

AND 25/100 ($697.25) per month . . . until the full and complete 

judgment has been paid included interest as accumulated. 

11. ORDER FOR WITHHOLDING AND CREDIT FOR 

AMOUNTS WITHHELD 

IT IS ORDERED that all arrearages enumerated above shall be 

payable through a withholding from earnings for additional child 

support. 

IT IS ORDERED that all attorney’s fees and costs awarded in 

this order shall be payable through a separate withholding from 

earnings for costs and fees. 

Exhibits C, D, and F, which were attached to the trial court’s Order To Enforce 
8

Additional Child Support, show that the parties stipulated to the reimbursement 

amount for health insurance premiums and uninsured medical expenses Father failed 

to pay Mother as reflected in the trial court’s order. 

On June 26, 2017, the trial court signed income withholding orders for child 

support arrearages and for attorney’s fees and cost. Father filed a timely appeal from 

the income withholding orders. 

ANALYSIS

 Father challenges the trial court’s income withholding orders in two issues, 

arguing that the trial court (1) “abused its discretion in the underlying order because 

the underlying relief has previously been litigated by the parties ending in a final 

judgment denying much of the requested relief in a binding arbitration proceeding;” 

and (2) “abused its discretion when [it] entered an order that identifies the payments 

as child support and authorizing wage withholding and an child support arrearage 

finding.” 

 We review issues regarding the payment of child support, confirmation of 

child support arrearages, and awards of attorney’s fees under an abuse of discretion 

standard. In re R.R., No. 02-15-00032-CV, 2017 WL 632897, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Feb. 16, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Worford v. Stamper, 801 

S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990)); see also Kendall v. Kendall, 340 S.W.3d 483, 507 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if 

it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles, that is, if the act is 

arbitrary or unreasonable. Bennett v. Grant, 525 S.W.3d 642, 654 (Tex. 2017).

 Father contends in his first issue that the parties submitted “all issues” to 

“binding arbitration which resulted in a binding decision in 2012.” Father claims 

“that decision controls the ruling in the trial court below and therefore that Court 
9

acted beyond its authority and contrary to binding principles of law because it acted 

in contravention to the prior arbitration ruling.” He contends the trial court’s Order 

To Enforce Additional Child Support and the trial court’s “attendant wage 

withholding orders are in direct contravention to the prior binding final arbitration 

award and as such they should be set aside.” 

 We note that the record before us does not contain the arbitration award, nor 

does Father cite to anything in the record to support his contention that the trial 

court’s orders conflict with the arbitration award so that “they should be set aside.” 

The burden is on the complaining party to present a sufficient record to the appellate 

court to show error requiring reversal. Aguero v. Aguero, 225 S.W.3d 236, 238 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.) (“Because Smith has not presented a record sufficient 

to show that the trial court ordered contempt without due process in its employer’s 

order to withhold earnings, he has waived this complaint.”).

From the record before us, specifically the language quoted in the trial court’s 

Order To Enforce Additional Child Support, it is evident that the trial court merely 

enforced (1) the 1999 Final Decree of Divorce and (2) the 2012 Order Modifying 

Final Decree Of Divorce Dated September 24, 1999 Incorporating Final Arbitration 

Decision And Award. Further, the income withholding orders conform with the 

Order To Enforce Additional Child Support. Therefore, we overrule Father’s first 

issue. 

Father argues in his second issue that the trial court abused its discretion by 

entering “an order that characterized medical bills and health insurance cost as child 

support and awarded a child support arrearage judgment against” him. Father claims 

“[t]here is no basis for the court’s determination of the amount [of] arrearage and the 

characterization that the arrearages as past due child support and subject to a wage 

withholding order.” In that regard, Father states: “The authority of this trial court 
10

only flows through the Arbitration Agreement of the parents. . . . In this instance the 

arbitrator fails to characterize the additional payments as anything but medical bills. 

In fact she failed to characterize them as anything other than that debt owed by each 

parent. There is no order language, no command language, and no characterization.” 

Again, we note that the record does not contain the arbitration award. 

However, the record does contain the Order To Enforce Additional Child Support, 

which specifically awards Mother as “additional child support” reimbursement for 

“cash medical support” (i.e., health insurance premiums) paid by her for C.M. and 

reimbursement for “uninsured medical expenses” paid by her for C.M. As 

prominently stated in that order, these awards were based on the 1999 Final Decree 

of Divorce and the 2012 Order Modifying Final Decree Of Divorce Dated September 

24, 1999 Incorporating Final Arbitration Decision And Award, which characterized 

medical support and uninsured medical expenses as “additional child support” to be 

paid by Father. Father does not dispute that the trial court’s Order To Enforce 

Additional Child Support correctly quotes and properly relies on the language in the 

1999 Final Decree of Divorce and the 2012 Order Modifying Final Decree Of 

Divorce Dated September 24, 1999 Incorporating Final Arbitration Decision And 

Award. Thus, contrary to Father’s contention, there is a basis for the trial court’s 

“characterization [of] arrearages as past due child support.” 

Further, we reject Father’s assertion that “[t]here is no basis for the court’s 

determination of the amount [of] the arrearage.” The trial court’s Order To Enforce 

Additional Child Support specifically states that the amount for arrearages is based 

on the parties’ stipulations in Exhibits C, D, and F. Exhibits C, D, and F are attached 

to the trial court’s order and show that the parties stipulated to the reimbursement 

amount for health insurance premiums and uninsured medical expenses Father failed 

to pay Mother as reflected in the trial court’s order. Therefore, there is a basis for 
11

“the court’s determination of the amount [of] the arrearage.” 

Father also makes the following statement in his brief: “To make a bad 

situation somewhat worse the Court then orders that the requested attorney fees also 

be characterized and awarded as additional child support.” To the extent Father is 

arguing that the trial court awarded attorney’s fees as additional child support, his 

assertion is not supported by the record. 

The Order To Enforce Additional Child Support clearly awards attorney’s 

fees not as child support but as costs, stating that “IT IS ORDERED that [Mother’s 

attorney] is AWARDED a judgment for attorney’s fees as cost.” In addition, the 

income withholding order states: “Withholding from Earnings for Attorney’s Fees 

and Costs.” There is no mention in the record of attorney’s fees being awarded as 

child support. Furthermore, “[i]n addition to an order for income to be withheld for 

child support, including child support and child support arrearages, the court may 

render an order that income be withheld from the disposable earnings of the obligor 

to be applied towards the satisfaction of any ordered attorney’s fees and costs 

resulting from an action to enforce child support.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 

158.0051(a) (Vernon 2014). 

Accordingly, we conclude the trial court acted within its discretion, and we 

overrule Father’s second issue. 

CONCLUSION

 We affirm the trial court’s orders. 
12

/s/ Meagan Hassan

 Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan (Frost, C.J., 

concurring).