NO. 12-14-00301-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF

TIMOTHY TREADWELL,

A CHILD

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Anthony Treadwell appeals the trial court’s order to modify the parent-child 

relationship. On appeal, Anthony presents one issue. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Anthony Treadwell and Courtney Crawford are the parents of one child, Timothy, born 

May 16, 2009. Anthony and Courtney were divorced on June 23, 2010, and were appointed joint 

managing conservators of the child. In the decree of divorce, Courtney was granted the 

exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child. Anthony was granted possession 

of the child at any time that he was off work so long as he gave Courtney twenty-four hours 

notice.

Courtney filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship, stating that the 

circumstances of the child, a conservator, or other party affected by the order to be modified 

have materially and substantially changed since the date of the divorce decree. She requested 

that Anthony’s possession of, and access to, the child be modified to comply with a standard 

possession order, and that Anthony’s child support payments be increased. In response, Anthony 

requested that he be appointed as the conservator with the exclusive right to designate the 

primary residence of the child without regard to geographical location, and that he be designated 

as sole managing conservator of the child. 
2

A bench trial was held beginning on March 26, 2014. At the conclusion of the trial, the 

court rendered an order appointing Anthony and Courtney as joint managing conservators of the 

child and granting Courtney the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child in 

Cherokee County. Anthony was granted possession of, and access to, the child pursuant to a 

standard possession order. Further, he was ordered to pay an increased amount of child support. 

Anthony filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by operation of law, and the trial court 

filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. This appeal followed.

SOCIAL STUDY

In his first issue, Anthony argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sua sponte 

ordering a social study after the close of evidence. He also contends that the social study was 

inadequate, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in using it to decide the case.

Standard of Review

A trial court’s modification of conservatorship is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re 

P.M.B., 2 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). It is an abuse of 

discretion for a trial court to rule without supporting evidence. Id. Under an abuse of discretion 

standard, the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error, 

but are relevant facts in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re Ferguson, 

927 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, no writ). In the absence of a clear abuse of 

discretion, an appellate court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id.

Applicable Law

The court may order the preparation of a social study into the circumstances and 

condition of a child who is the subject of a suit or a party to a suit and the home of any person 

requesting conservatorship of, possession of, or access to a child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN.

§ 107.051(a) (West 2014). The social study is to be made a part of the record in every case and 

need not be tendered into evidence. Green v. Remling, 608 S.W.2d 905, 907 (Tex. 1980). Thus, 

in a bench trial, the court may consider the report regardless of whether it is formally introduced 

into evidence. Chacon v. Chacon, 978 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1988, no pet.). A 

party is entitled to call as a witness the author of the report to attack the accuracy of the 

information included or the conclusions drawn therefrom. Id.; see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 

§ 107.055(c) (West 2014).
3

To present a complaint for review on appeal, the record must show that the complaint 

was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds for 

the ruling that the complaining party sought with sufficient specificity to make the trial court 

aware of the complaint. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). “[O]bjection to a trial court’s alleged 

improper conduct or comment must be made when it occurs if a party is to preserve error for

appellate review, unless the conduct or comment cannot be rendered harmless by proper 

instruction.” Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001). A party waives error 

by failing to raise it in the trial court. Jacobs v. Satterwhite, 65 S.W.3d 653, 656 n.1 (Tex. 

2001). 

Analysis

As a part of his first issue, Anthony argues that the trial court abused its discretion by sua 

sponte ordering a social study. The record shows that after both parties rested and made their 

closing arguments, the trial court stated that it was not prepared to make a final order, that it 

wanted to think about the case and review its notes, and wanted a social study to be completed 

on both parties’ homes. The trial court asked Anthony’s counsel if he had any objections. He 

responded that he had “no objection,” and the trial court ordered Jody Westbrook to complete a 

social study.

Failure to present a timely and specific request, objection, or motion to the trial court for 

a ruling results in waiver or forfeiture of the right to present the claim on appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 33.1; Jacobs, 65 S.W.3d at 656 n.1. Because Anthony affirmatively stated that he had 

“no objection,” we hold that he waived any claim on appeal that the trial court abused its 

discretion in sua sponte ordering the social study. 

At the final hearing, the trial court denied Anthony’s motion for continuance and declined 

to reopen the evidence. The court stated further that it may have been “out of line in ordering the 

[social] study at the time,” but that it believed it was within its rights and ability as a court to do 

so. The court also informed the parties that it had reviewed its “pretty specific” notes from the 

hearing and briefly looked at the social study, but did not read the whole document. Moreover, 

the court states in its finding of fact number 19 that it did not consider the social study or its 

addendum in arriving at its findings of fact or conclusions of law. Therefore, we conclude that 

the trial court relied on its “pretty specific” notes to decide the case and did not consider the 
4

social study or its addendum. Consequently, we need not address the adequacy of the social 

study.

We overrule Anthony’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Anthony’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered May 29, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
5

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 29, 2015

NO. 12-14-00301-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF TIMOTHY TREADWELL, A CHILD

Appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2010-04-0299)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged 

against the Appellant, ANTHONY TREADWELL, for which execution may issue, and that this 

decision be certified to the court below for observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.