### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 436 -CV

Ro sa linda Ble ssi ng , A ppe lla nt

v. Joe Salvador Cardenas, Jr., Appellee

FROM THE COUN TY C OURT A T LA W N O. 3 OF WILL IAMS ON C OUNT Y, NO. 04-1 444- F C3 HO NORAB LE DONALD H IGGINB OTH AM , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ros a lin da B le ssi nga

pp e a ls f ro m a tr ia l c ourt or de r i n a su it a ff e c tin g the pa

re nt- c hil d
re l at i o n ship. The orde r appointed B lessing a nd J oe Salvador

Cardena s, J r., as joint manag ing
conser vators of a child, N.R.C., a nd g ave Cardena s the rig ht to establish N.R.C.’s primary residenc e. B le ssi n g b r i n g s t w o i s s u e s . I n h e r f i r s t i s s u e , B l e s s i n g c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt a b u s e d it s discretion in appointing Cardena s as j oint manag ing conservator, with the rig ht to establish N.R.C.’s primary residen ce , b ec ause there wa s no evidenc e that Carde nas wa s a par ent of N.R.C. I n her second issue, B lessing c omplains that the trial court incor porate d the standar d p o s s es sion order applicable to pare nts livi ng more than one hundred miles apa rt despite conc lusive evidenc e that she and Carde nas lived within one hundre d miles of eac h other. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.312 (standar d possession order f or par ents living within one hundre d mi l es of e ach othe r),2

.313 (s tand ard

po sse ssi on

or de r f or pa re nts liv ingmor e tha

n o ne hund

re d mi le s a

pa rt ) (West Supp. 2007). W e will overr ule these issues a

nd aff irm the trial cour

t’s order
. Ble s s in g d id

n o t d is p u te Ca

r d e n a s ’ s p a te r

n it y u n ti l s h e ( w it

hn e w c o u n s e l) f

iled a motion for new

trial. Ble ssing ha d p re v i o u s l y acknow ledg ed in her

pleading s that Cardena s “is the father of the subject child” a n d al so signe d a mediate d settlement ag ree ment reg arding temporar y order s that acknow ledg ed this fac t. These statements amount to judicial admissions that Cardena s is the fath er o f N. R
. C
. , and she is thus barr ed fr om disputi ng this fact. Se e Ho ly Cro ss Chu rc h of Go d in Chr ist

v . W olf , 44 S.W .3d 562, 568 (Tex. 2001) (“‘ Assertions of fa ct, not plead in the alternative, in the live p l ea d i n gs of a pa rty are reg arde d as for

mal judicial admissions.’ A jud ic ia l a dmi ssi on

that is c le ar a

nd un e qu ivo c a l ha s c on c lus ive e ff e c t and ba rs the a dmi tti ngpa

rt y fr o m l at er d i s p u t i n g t h e a dm i t t edfa ct
. ”) (q u o t i n g Houston First Am. Sav. v . Musick, 650 S.W .2d 764, 76 7 ( Te x. 19 83 )) ; se e als o Miller v. Gann , 842 S.W .2d 641 (Tex. 1992) (par ty ’s statement c laiming indi vi du a l owne rs hip of

land in a pr op e rt y se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt w ith in h is d ivo rc e de c re e wa s a judicial admission, thus party was judicially

est o p ped fr om claiming that the land was owned by pa rt ne rs hip ); John s o n v. Johnson , 5 79 S.W. 2d 30 , 3 1 ( Te x. Civ . App .—B e a umo nt 1 97 9, no wr it) (“Responde nt’s alleg ation that both children ‘ wer e born to or a dopted by the par ties to the marria g e’
was a judicial admission that he was the f ather of [the child] . He is bound by this admissi on.”). Furthe r mo r e , th e tr ia l c o u rt h e ar d e v id e n c e th a t C ar d e n a s w a s N
. R. C. ’ s f a the r, adjudicate d in its order that B lessing a nd Cardena s were the child’s par ents, and a dditionally enter ed finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law to the same eff ect. SeeTex. Fam. Code Ann. § 160.201( b)(3) (West 2002). We overr

ule B lessing’ s first issue.3 As for B lessing’ s complaint about the possession or der, the trial court, having he ard the evidenc e reg arding both pa rents’ circ umstances and capa city to car e for

N.R.C., found that it was in N.R.C.’s best i n t er es t s for Blessing to have a possession order c onsistent with the standard possession order f

or par ents who l ive m ore than one hundre d miles apart r ather than for those living within one hundred miles. See I d
. §§ 153.312-.313. I t is undisput ed that both B lessing a nd Cardena s lived in Williamson County and within one hundred miles of eac h other. The leg islature has cr eate d
a re buttable pre sump ti o n

th a t t h e a p p li c a b les ta ndard posse ssion order pr ovides rea sonable minimum po sse ssi on of a c hil d fo r a pa re nt name d a s a joi nt mana g ing c on se rv a tor and is in the be st i nte re sts of the c hild. Id. § 15 3. 25 2 (We st 20 02 ). Con se qu e ntl y , th e sta nd ard po sse ssi on

or de r a pp lic a ble to pare nts livi ng within one hundred miles of e ach othe r p resumptively applied her e. Howe ver, the leg isl a tu r e also c ontemplated that “the work sche dule or other specia l circumstanc es of the ma nag ing
c on se rv a tor

. . . o r t he c hil d .
. . [may ] make the sta nd ard or de r u nw or ka ble or inap pr op ri a te ,” in which ca se the trial co u rt “s hall rende r an or der that gr ants periods of posse ssion of the child as simil ar a s possible to those provided by the standar d possession order.” Id. § 153.253 (West 2002). The primar

y eff ect of the trial cour

t’s use of the sta

ndard posse ssion order

for pa rents living be y ond
on e hund re d mi le s o f e a c h o the r, ins te a d o f the on e that pr e sumpt ive ly a pp lie d, wa s to inc re a se Ble ssing’ s summertime possession while decr easingher visitation during the work w eek. T he trial court found this ar

rang ement wa s in N.R.C.’s best interests after hear ing e vidence of Carde nas’s work sche dule, the par ents’ ability to ge t along , an d o t h er factor s bear ing upon the worka bility of the standar d order . We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rega rd t o the possession order, a

nd overr ule B lessing’ s second issue.4 Havingoverr

uled B lessing’ s issues, we af firm the trial c ourt’s orde r.

____________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: August 15, 2008