COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-09-00309-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF 

T.A.W., L.J.W., M.M.W., 

AND J.M.W., MINOR 

CHILDREN

------------

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

I. Introduction

In five issues, Appellant Father appeals from the trial court’s denial of his 

petition to modify child support, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion 

by denying his request to reduce his child support obligation. We reverse and 

remand.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

II. Factual and Procedural Background

As set forth in the December 2005 final decree of divorce, Father is 

obligated to pay Mother $6,500 per month in child support for their four children. 

In April 2007, Father filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship, 

seeking to reduce this amount. After hearing evidence pertaining to the parties’ 

income and the children’s expenses,

2

the trial court set out the following in its 

order: 

(a) the monthly net resources of the obligor per month are in excess 

of $7,500.00 (the income from [Father’s] medical practice in 2008 

was $476,721.00);

(b) the monthly net resources of the obligee per month are 

$3,000.00;

(c) the percentage applied to the obligor’s net resources for child 

support by the actual order rendered by the Court is 35%, reducing 

as each child is emancipated per statute;

(d) the amount of child support if the percentage guidelines are 

applied to the portion of the obligor’s net resources that does not 

exceed the amount provided by section 154.125(a), Texas Family 

Code, is as follows:

35% = $2,625.00

30% = $2,250.00

25% = $1,875.00

20% = $1,500.00;

(e) the specific reasons that the amount of child support per month 

ordered by the Court varies from the amount stated in Subdivision 

 

2Specific portions of the relevant testimony are set out below. 
3

(4) are that the children’s proven needs exceed $2,625.00 per 

month. The Court finds that the basic general needs of the children 

are $5,810.00 per month. The Court finds that the specific proven 

needs of the individual children are $1,210.00 per month. The Court 

finds that the total proven needs of the children are $7,020.00 per 

month; [and]

. . . .

(g) pursuant to Section 156.126, Texas Family Code, the Court finds 

that the total proven needs of the children are $7,020.00. The Court 

finds that the presumptive award of child support is $2,625.00. The 

Court allocates the award of child support over and above the 

presumptive award, as follows:

$3,875.00 to [Father]

$ 520.00 to [Mother]. 

The trial court concluded that because Father’s child support obligation 

was set at $6,500 per month, and because the children’s needs exceeded that 

amount, it would not change the child support provisions in the divorce decree.

The trial court also adopted the following pertinent proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law:

2. The amount of child support ordered by the Court is in 

excess of the amount provided for by the percentage 

guidelines;

3. The Court finds that [Father]’s net income is as follows:

a. 2005 (year of divorce) – medical practice $460,933.00

b. 2008 – medical practice $476,721.00;

4. The amount of net resources available to [Father] per 

month is in excess of $7,500.00[;]

5. The amount of net resources available to [Mother] per 

month is $3,000.00;
4

. . . .

11. The Court further finds that the amounts of support of 

the children based upon their needs and best interest of the 

children are as follows:

a. Basic general needs of the children are $5,810.00

per month as follows:

Housing $1,200.00

Utilities $500.00

Food $800.00

Medications (Uninsured) $100.00

Transportation $1,000.00

Counseling -0.00-

Tutoring -0.00-

School Lunches $160.00

Hair Cuts & Miscellaneous grooming needs $100.00

Clothing/cleaning $350.00 

Medical – including optometric (misc.) 

not covered by ins., included separately

Vacations $500.00

Private Schools -0.00-

Misc. Expenses $1,100.00

b. Specific needs of the individual children are $1,210.00 

per month as follows:

[Child 1]

Sports lessons/camps $50.00

Additional sports equipment $20.00

Additional medical (uninsured) $50.00

College prep tests/trips $125.00

Special school expenses $50.00

$295.00

[Child 2]

Sports lessons/camps $50.00

Additional sports equipment $20.00

Additional medical (uninsured) $60.00

College prep tests $25.00

Special school expenses $50.00

Car expenses $20.00

$225.00
5

[Child 3]

Sports lessons/camps $350.00

Sports/cheerleading equip./clothes $80.00

Optometric needs $50.00

Cheerleading expenses $40.00

$520.00

[Child 4]

Sports lessons/camps $120.00

Additional clothes $20.00

Special school expenses $30.00

 $170.00

c. Total support needs are $7,020.00 per month.

After setting out the children’s itemized basic general needs and 

individual specific needs, the court made the following conclusions of law 

that Father now challenges:

3. The Court finds that there have been no material and 

substantial changes since the date of the Order’s rendition in 

regards to the children or a person affected by the Order 

which would warrant a reduction of child support.

. . . .

5. In determining whether application of the guidelines was 

unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances, the Court 

considered evidence of all relevant factors, including factors 

set forth in Section 154.123 of the Texas Family Code.

. . . .

10. In comparing the needs of the children at the time of 

rendition of the Order with the needs of the children at the time 

modification is sought, there have been no material and 

substantial changes so as to warrant modification of child 

support. 
6

III. Discussion

Father complains that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused 

to reduce his child support obligation by (1) considering evidence of Father’s and 

the children’s lifestyles, contrary to family code section 154.126(a); (2) 

concluding that the children’s proven needs were $7,020 per month; (3) failing to 

segregate portions of the housing, utilities, food, and transportation costs to 

Mother, her new husband, and her two step-children; (4) finding that there have 

been no material and substantial changes since the rendition of the divorce 

decree that would warrant a reduction of child support; and (5) ordering him to 

pay more than 100 percent of the children’s proven needs, in violation of section 

154.126(b). 

A. Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s refusal to modify child support for an abuse of 

discretion. In re B.S.H., 308 S.W.3d 76, 78 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no 

pet.); In re P.J.H., 25 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.). If 

there is some probative and substantive evidence to support the judgment, the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion. B.S.H., 308 S.W.3d at 78; P.J.H., 25 

S.W.3d at 405. An abuse of discretion does not occur when the trial court bases 

its decisions on conflicting evidence. In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Tex. 

1998) (orig. proceeding). 

A trial court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law to established 

facts. State v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975); In re Talco-
7

Bogata Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. Bond Election, 994 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Tex. 

App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.). Legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence 

are relevant factors in determining whether the trial court has abused its 

discretion but are not independent grounds for asserting error. In re A.J.J., No. 

02-04-00265-CV, 2005 WL 914493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 21, 2005, 

no pet.) (mem. op.).

The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewable for legal and factual 

sufficiency of the evidence to support them by the same standards that are 

applied in reviewing evidence supporting a jury’s answer. Ortiz v. Jones, 917 

S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex. 1996); Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 

1994). We may sustain a legal sufficiency challenge only when (1) the record 

discloses a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred 

by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to 

prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a 

mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of a vital 

fact. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328, 334 (Tex. 1998), 

cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1040 (1999); Robert W. Calvert, “No Evidence” and 

“Insufficient Evidence” Points of Error, 38 Tex. L. Rev. 361, 362–63 (1960). In 

determining whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support the finding 

under review, we must consider evidence favorable to the finding if a reasonable 

factfinder could and disregard evidence contrary to the finding unless a 

reasonable factfinder could not. Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 
8

S.W.3d 649, 651 (Tex. 2007); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 827 

(Tex. 2005).

When reviewing an assertion that the evidence is factually insufficient to 

support a finding, we set aside the finding only if, after considering and weighing 

all of the evidence in the record pertinent to that finding, we determine that the 

evidence supporting the finding is so weak, or so contrary to the overwhelming 

weight of all the evidence, that the answer should be set aside and a new trial 

ordered. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) (op. on 

reh’g); Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. 1965); In re King’s Estate, 150 

Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1951).

B. Modification

A trial court may modify a child support order on a showing that the 

circumstances of a child or a person affected by the order ―have materially and 

substantially changed‖ since the order was signed. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 156.401(a) (Vernon 2008); In re A.J.J., 2005 WL 914493, at *1–2. The party 

seeking to modify a child support order has the burden to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that a material and substantial change in 

circumstances has occurred. In re Z.B.P., 109 S.W.3d 772, 781 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 805 S.W.2d 848, 851 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi 1991, writ denied). In a modification proceeding, the trial 

court compares the financial circumstances of the child and the affected parties 

at the time the support order was entered with their circumstances at the time the 
9

modification is sought. Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). 

We initially note that because Father’s petition for modification was filed 

before September 1, 2007, former section 154.126 governs the child-supportmodification request in this case. See Act of April 6, 1995, 74th leg., R.S., ch. 

20, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 113, 162–63 (amended 2007) (current version at 

Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.126 (Vernon 2008)).3Former section 154.126 

provides:

(a) If the obligor’s net resources exceed [$6,000 per month], the 

court shall presumptively apply the percentage guidelines to the [first 

$6,000 of the obligor’s net resources]. Without further reference to 

the percentage recommended by these guidelines, the court may 

order additional amounts of child support as appropriate, depending 

on the income of the parties and the proven needs of the child.

(b) The proper calculation of a child support order that exceeds the 

presumptive amount established for the [first $6,000 of the obligor’s 

net resources] requires that the entire amount of the presumptive 

award be subtracted from the proven total needs of the child. After 

the presumptive award is subtracted, the court shall allocate 

between the parties the responsibility to meet the additional needs of 

the child according to the circumstances of the parties. However, in 

no event may the obligor be required to pay more child support than 

the greater of the presumptive amount or the amount equal to 100 

percent of the proven needs of the child.

Id. (emphasis added).

 

3

The 2007 amendment changed, among other things, the monthly netresource amount from $6,000 to $7,500. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.125 

(Vernon 2008). 
10

Though the parties disagree on Father’s actual income, they do not dispute 

that his income is greater than the $6,000 per month necessary to trigger section 

154.126.4 Applying the percentage guidelines to the first $6,000 of Father’s 

income results in presumptive child support amounts below those contained in 

the trial court’s order:

Presumptive Amount Trial Court’s Order

35% = $2,100 $2,625

30% = $1,800 $2,250

25% = $1,500 $1,875

20% = $1,200 $1,500

See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 154.125, 154.126(a) (Vernon 2008). The 

presumptive child support amounts listed in the trial court’s order were based on 

the revised monthly income level of $7,500 which took effect on September 1, 

2007. Father’s petition for modification was filed on April 9, 2007. Thus, the trial 

court misapplied the law to Father’s income level before reaching its proven 

needs findings. 

Notwithstanding this error, because the trial court determined that the 

children’s needs had not materially and substantially changed, our next step is to 

 

4Even though Father contends that his income is decreasing, the amount 

he claims is well above that necessary to trigger the narrow assessment and 

limited factors of section 154.126. 
11

determine whether the court abused its discretion by reaching this conclusion. 

This requires comparing the children’s current needs with those at the time of the 

divorce decree. Father’s first, second, and third issues all relate to the court’s 

determination of the children’s current proven needs. 

1. Consideration of Lifestyle Evidence 

In his first issue, Father challenges the court’s use of factors beyond those 

listed in section 154.126 as indicated in conclusion of law number 5, arguing that 

the trial court abused its discretion by considering evidence of Father’s and the 

children’s lifestyles. 

Section 154.126(a) does not include lifestyle in the two factors it delineates 

for consideration of child support awards above the presumptive amount: (1) the 

proven needs of the children, and (2) the income of the parties. Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 154.126(a); see also Gray v. Nash, 259 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied) (indicating that every word excluded from a statute 

is presumed excluded for a purpose). In evaluating section 154.126’s 

predecessor statute, the supreme court limited consideration of child support 

above the presumptive amount in high-income cases to those factors expressly 

listed in the statute. See Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414, 416–17 (Tex. 

1993) (construing predecessor statute). Therefore, lifestyle evidence cannot be 

considered in determining a child support award above the presumptive amount 

when the obligor’s net monthly resources are greater than $6,000. See id.; Lide 

v. Lide, 116 S.W.3d 147, 156 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, no pet.); see also In re 
12

Gonzalez, 993 S.W.2d 147, 159 n.3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.)

(holding that section 154.126 narrows the factors to consider in high-income child 

support cases); Scott v. Younts, 926 S.W.2d 415, 420 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi 1996, writ denied) (holding that while the court can consider a wide range 

of factors in setting support obligations for obligors earning less than the $6,000 

threshold, the trial court improperly considered factors outside of those narrowly 

defined in section 154.126 for an obligor earning over $6,000 per month); In re

Marriage of Thurmond, 888 S.W.2d 269, 278 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ 

denied) (reinforcing Rodriguez’s conclusion that ―lifestyle‖ could not be 

considered when awarding child support beyond the presumptive level in cases 

where the obligor’s income rose above the statutorily designated income level).

At the hearing, the trial court overruled Father’s objections to questions 

about how much he spent on travel expenses and allowed Mother to question 

him about his travel habits and trips taken from 2006 to 2008.5 Father also 

objected to questions on expenditures related to the children. Father’s allegation 

that the expenditures represented the children’s lifestyle, not their needs, 

sparked a discussion with the trial court on the factors relevant to its analysis, 

which concluded with the trial court stating,

It sounds like you’re saying I cannot take into account his income, 

what the kids were used to, the lifestyle they were accustomed to; all 

 

5Mother argued that Father’s expenses were relevant to his complaint that 

his income was being reduced while he was still living a ―lavish lifestyle, and 

claiming poverty.‖ 
13

I can do is say his definition of needs and it’s got to be less than this 

amount, and I can’t take into account other factors that might be 

relevant to their situation in life. 

. . . .

I am going to overrule your objection. I’m not going to find that I’m 

limited purely to your definition of ―needs‖ and that I can’t consider 

the financial condition of the person paying the child support, nor 

can I consider the lifestyle to which he helped them become 

accustomed to prior to the divorce, and that his definition of, quote, 

needs, is binding upon me. I’m not going to be that restrictive in it.

So if that’s what you’re telling me I need to do, I’m going to overrule 

your objection, and I will sure try to follow the law but I don’t interpret 

the law as you have outlined it with that limitation of his definition of 

―needs‖ and that restrictive.

And as set out in conclusion of law number 5, the trial court stated that in 

determining whether application of the guidelines was unjust or inappropriate, it 

considered evidence of all relevant factors, not just the two listed in section 

154.126. Thus, even if the trial court correctly exercised its discretion by 

rejecting Father’s definition of ―need‖ as being overly narrow, the record reflects 

that the trial court erred by considering a factor—lifestyle—beyond those outlined 

in family code section 154.126(a). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.126(a); see

also Lide, 116 S.W.3d at 156; In re Gonzalez, 993 S.W.2d at 159 n.3; Scott, 926 

S.W.2d at 420; In re Marriage of Thurmond, 888 S.W.2d at 278. We sustain 

Father’s first issue.

2. Proven Needs

In his second and third issues, Father challenges the trial court’s needs 

assessment, challenging finding of fact number 11 itemizing the children’s needs 
14

and alleging that the trial court erred by including inappropriate items in the 

supported children’s proven needs and by failing to segregate the supported 

children’s expenses from Mother’s, her new husband’s, and her step-children’s. 

a. Parents’ Testimonies

Mother testified that she had remarried and that two step-children 

occasionally resided with her. She further testified that none of the current 

housing, utilities, food, or transportation expenses in the divorce decree were 

allocated to her herself, her husband, or her step-children; that her current 

husband does not contribute to the mortgage or utility expenses; that the 

supported children’s transportation expenses, originally $1,500 at the time of the 

divorce, now totaled $900 per month; that the cost of vacations had decreased; 

and that she would have cable and internet service regardless of the supported 

children’s presence. She also noted that several expenses present at the time of 

the divorce decree—maid service, counseling, tutoring, and private school 

tuition—no longer existed.

6

 Additionally, she testified that her mortgage

payment, $3,000 at the time of the divorce decree, was now $1,775.7 She 

 

6Mother’s interrogatory responses indicated that tutoring and 

housekeeping services had ended, but she testified that subsequent to 

discovery, some level of tutoring had resumed and that she had since hired a 

cleaning lady. 

7Mother stated that the $1,775 that she supplied in discovery prior to the 

trial was not accurate, but she failed to supplement her responses prior to the 

hearing. Mother had apparently moved since the divorce, stating ―There was no 

way I could have stayed in the house I was in and afford it . . . .‖ 
15

offered conflicting testimony as to what portion of her current mortgage was 

attributable to the children, initially testifying that eighty percent was attributable 

to the supported children, but subsequently admitting her share of the monthly 

housing expense was $1,000. Mother also admitted that even though the 

divorce decree’s child-support award included clothing expenses, she required 

Father to purchase a separate set of clothing for the children to keep at his house 

because it was ―too stressful‖ on the children to pack for each visit.8 

In defending the current support level, Mother stated that as the children 

have grown older, their interests and activities have increased their support 

needs. Mother offered into evidence a written summary of each child’s 

extracurricular sports, college preparatory work, academic conference, and 

summer camp activities. Father disputes that these activities are ―needs.‖ 

Mother and Father both testified to sharing the additional expenses related to the 

purchase, maintenance, and registration fees of the two older boys’ cars, as well 

as the expenses associated with extraordinary events for all four children such as 

summer camps, conferences, or vacations with friends. 

 

8

The monthly clothing allowance at the time of the divorce was $300, 

Mother testified that she now spends $500 and that Father ―rarely‖ buys the 

children’s clothes. Father disputed this claim, indicating that Mother’s actions 

forced him to purchase a separate set of clothing for each child and that he 

routinely supplements the children’s wardrobes above and beyond what is 

necessary to support their visitation with him. 
16

b. Modification Order

The trial court found the children’s proven needs to be $7,020 per month, 

consisting of monthly ―general needs‖ of $5,810 and ―specific needs‖ of $1,210. 

The trial court’s order contained schedules of the children’s general and specific 

needs, listing ―basic general needs‖ and ―specific individual needs.‖ It listed 

basic general needs as housing, utilities, food, medications (uninsured), 

transportation, counseling, tutoring, school lunches, haircuts and miscellaneous 

grooming needs, clothing, medical (not covered by insurance), vacations, and 

private schools, totaling $4,710,9in addition to a category listed as ―Misc. 

Expenses‖ for $1,100, for a basic general needs total of $5,810 per month. It 

also listed specific, individual needs for each child, including sports lessons, 

camps, and equipment; college prep; uninsured medical expenses; cheerleading;

and others, amounting to $295, $225, $520, and $170 respectively, and totaling 

$1,210 per month. 

c. Mother’s Failure to Segregate Expenses

Mother admitted that the housing, food, utility, and transportation expenses 

she submitted included those of herself, her new husband, and her step-children. 

The record contains a copy of Mother’s mortgage statement indicating that she 

pays $1,775 per month for housing. The trial court allocated Mother a portion of 

that amount, $1,200 per month, for the children’s housing. Mother also testified 

 

9Counseling, tutoring, and private schools were each listed as costing $0.
17

that she spent $1,200 per month on groceries, that her husband purchases 

separate groceries for her step-children, and that she attributes $200 per month 

of the grocery bill to herself. The trial court allocated $800 per month towards the 

children’s food. Therefore, there is evidence of substantial and probative 

character to support the trial court’s order that housing and food expenses are 

segregated in the current support schedule. 

But the trial court failed to require Mother to segregate the children’s 

particularized needs as to transportation and utilities from those of Mother, her 

new husband, and her step-children. See Lide, 116 S.W.3d at 158 (indicating 

that the trial court’s finding was not supported by the record when the requesting 

parent failed to segregate, itemize, or explain the particularized needs of the 

children); see also Nordstrom v. Nordstrom, 965 S.W.2d 575, 579–80 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. denied), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1142 (1999)

(indicating Mother’s conflicting testimony as to whether the child’s portion of 

expenses were segregated from the Mother’s was insufficient to support Mother’s 

request to increase child support). Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by 

awarding Mother the full amount of these items.

d. Children’s General Needs 

Family code section 154.126 instructs the trial court to consider the parties’

income and the children’s proven needs when assessing support above the 

presumptive level in high-income cases. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.126(a). 

The children’s needs are not limited to ―the bare necessities of life.‖ Rodriguez, 
18

860 S.W.2d at 418 n.3. The trial court must determine what the needs are on a 

case-by-case basis by following the ―paramount guiding principle: the best 

interest of the child.‖ Id.; see also Scott, 926 S.W.2d at 420 (indicating that the 

child’s best interest should be the guiding principle for determining the children’s 

needs). Additionally, the children’s needs must be supported by evidence and 

must be explained or itemized. Lide, 116 S.W.3d at 158. 

The record supports the trial court’s removal of the counseling, tutoring, 

and private school expenses. The net change in removing or reducing these 

items ($1,012) represents approximately a fifteen-percent decrease from the 

support amount originally specified in the divorce decree ($6,500). This 

reduction is effectively offset by the $1,100 per month that the trial court 

attributed to ―Misc. Expenses.‖ The miscellaneous expense category is not 

supported by any pleading or evidence. Mother testified to the increased 

expenses associated with the children’s changed needs and interests, but the 

trial court accounted for those expenses when it determined each child’s specific 

individual needs. Even given the trial court’s broad discretion in determining the 

children’s needs, because there is no record that Mother requested, itemized, or 

explained the ―Misc. Expenses,‖ the trial court could not have reasonably 

construed the $1,100 allocated to them as a ―proven need.‖ See Lide, 116 

S.W.3d at 158 (indicating that reversal is required when the obligor’s net 

resources exceed $6,000 per month and the obligee fails to segregate, itemize, 
19

or explain expenses related to the children). Therefore, the trial court abused its 

discretion in finding the ―Misc. Expenses‖ as a proven need. 

e. Children’s Specific Needs

Father also challenges the items outlined in the children’s specific-needs 

schedule, asserting that the expenses represent the children’s interests but do 

not rise to the level of need. The law does not require expert testimony to 

determine if a child’s need exists. See Scott, 926 S.W.2d at 421. The trial court, 

as sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, may choose whether to believe a 

particular witness. See Fanning v. Fanning, 828 S.W.2d 135, 150 (Tex. App.—

Waco 1992), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded on other grounds, 847 

S.W.2d 225 (Tex. 1993). And, even though the ―needs of the child‖ are not so

expansive as to encompass the most extravagant demands, the court is given 

broad discretion to determine the needs of the child. Scott, 926 S.W.2d at 422. 

Mother testified about the additional expenses involved with the children’s 

increased interests and activities. Therefore, because Mother’s testimony 

provides substantive and probative evidence supporting its findings, we cannot 

conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by including expenses related to 

the children’s extracurricular, sporting, or interest-related activities in its childsupport modification order. See id.; see also In re Pecht, 874 S.W.2d 797, 802 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994, no writ) (recognizing that as children age, their 

interests expand and can become more expensive); Hoffman, 805 S.W.2d at 851 

(same).
20

Finally, Father complains that the trialcourt erred by including uninsured 

medical expenses in the children’s specific needs. Father claims that the 

modification order essentially overrules the divorce decree’s order that the couple 

share these expenses, that the expenses should not be part of the monthly court 

ordered support, and that the expenses amount to a double recovery by Mother

and the order awards Mother relief for which she did not plead.

The original divorce decree addressed the children’s uninsured medical 

expenses in a section separate from the one defining the monthly child support 

obligation. Specifically, the divorce decree requires that the parties share 

expenses related to uninsured medical and dental care.10 The children’s 

―Specific Needs Schedule‖ incorporated into the trial court’s modified child 

support order includes uninsured medical expenses for two of the children. 

Because the original divorce decree and the parties’ testimonies reflect 

that the children’s uninsured medical expenses were already being met, the 

expense could not reasonably be considered a proven need of the children as 

required by family code section 154.126(a). See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.

§ 154.126(a); see In re J.A.H., 311 S.W.3d 536, 543–44 (Tex. App.—El Paso 

2009, no pet.) (denying a request to modify child support because the needs of 

 

10Though the original divorce decree outlines six distinct circumstances 

related to payment for the children’s uninsured medical and dental care, the 

parties do not dispute that, for the most part, it directs Father to pay seventy-five 

percent of the children’s uninsured medical expenses and fifty percent of the 

children’s dental expenses. 
21

the children were already being met). And, as the family code contemplates 

support above the presumptive amount for the children’s proven needs in high 

income cases, inclusion of these expenses without modification of the original 

divorce decree’s reimbursement clause results in a windfall for Mother by 

alleviating her responsibility for these expenses. Therefore, including the 

children’s uninsured medical expenses was an abuse of the trial court’s 

discretion. See id.; cf. Warren v. Warren, No. 13-05-00429-CV, 2008 WL 

668213, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Mar. 13, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(holding that the family code contemplates an exact dollar amount based on 

proven needs and any award of additional child support above that results in a 

windfall in the form of double recovery). 

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the trial court abused its 

discretion when it determined the children’s proven needs, and we sustain 

Father’s second and third issues. 
22

IV. Conclusion

Having concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by using an 

incorrect income threshold in its analysis and by improperly considering lifestyle

evidence; by requiring duplicative reimbursement for uninsured medical 

expenses; and by failing to require that Mother segregate the expenses

associated with herself, her new husband, and her step-children in determining 

the proven needs of the supported children, we sustain Father’s first, second, 

and third issues.11 We reverse the trial court’s order and remand this case for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

BOB MCCOY

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MCCOY; and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 24, 2010

 

11Based on our disposition of Father’s first, second, and third issues we do 

not reach Father’s fourth and fifth issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; In re C.C.J., 

244 S.W.3d 911, 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (indicating that, unless 

the record contains both historical and current evidence, the court cannot 

determine whether a material and substantial change has occurred).