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

NO. 03-0 6 -00 426 -CV

Edwar d D. We st br oo k , A ppe lla nt

v. Vanessa Westbrook , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 99- 0102 53 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM E. BENDER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Edwar d D. Westbrook, a ppear ing pr o se, appe als the district court’ s order confirmingchild support arr ear ag es, health ca re insura nce pr emium reimburseme nt arre ara g es, and health ca re e x pense r eimbursement a rre ara g es. We aff

irm the district court’s or der. Edwar d Westbrook and appellee Vanessa Westbrook we re divorc ed in 2000. They had two minor childre n. The fina l de cre e of divorce require d Edwar d to pay child support, a portion of the premiums for the children’ s cover ag e under the health insurance plan p ro v i d ed by Vane ssa’s employ er, a

nd half of the children’ s rea sonable a nd nece s s ar y

health ca re e x penses not paid by insurance
. Edwar d was orde red to a ppear befor e the Tr avis County district court on Marc h 22, 2004, reg ardingcontempt for f ailure to pa

y child support. He f

ai l ed t o appea

r in court2

on that day , and the c ourt order ed a ca p i as b e i s s u ed for his arre st. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 1 57 .1 14 (We st 2 00 2) . E dw ard wa s arr e ste d in

Au g us t 20 05 purs ua

nt t o th e c a

pia s. I n a November 14, 2005 hear ing, the appointed assoc iate judg e found that the parties ha d e nte re d in to a

n a g re e me nt u

nd e r w hic h E dw a

rd wo uld make mon thl y pa

y me nts of $1 00 to satisfy the arrea rag e amount of $12,984.61, in addition t o his monthl y child support pay

ments. The district court appr oved the a ssociate judg e’s No v ember 14 findings a nd rec ommendations on November

15, 2005. On April 24, 2006, the parties ag ain appeare d befor e an a ssociate judg e, who ag ain found that the pa

rties had ag ree d to monthly pay ments of $100 on the ar

rea rag e amount, which had incr ease d to $13, 2 7 4 .68. The a ssociate judg e also re commended that after J uly 2006—upon wh ic h E dw a rd ’s ob lig a tio n und e r t he div or c e de c re e to m a ke c hil d s up po rt pa y me nts c e a se d b e c a

us e the Westbrooks’ y oung est child turned 18—Edw ard’ s monthly pay ments to sati s fy

the re maining
arr ear ag e amount would increase to $250. The district cour t approve d the associate judg e’s Apr il 24 finding s and re commendations on May 5, 2006. Edwar d appe al ed to the district court and r equeste d a de novo he aring
. See id. § 201.015 (West Supp. 2008). On May 26, 2006, the distri ct co u rt held the re quested de novo h ea ri n g an d u

p h el d t h e co u rt ’s p re v i o u s fi n d i n gs an d re co m m en d at i o n s fr o m t h e A p ri l 2 0 0 6 h ea ri n g. E dwa rd ra i s es v ar i o u s ar gu m en t s at t ac k i n g t h e acc u ra cy o f t h e $ 1 3 , 2 7 4
. 6 8 arre ar age
am o u n t . He c omplains that he was ne ver g iven proof of how the amount wa s determined a nd calc ulated, and w as only shown a sum mary document without itemiz ation of medica l pay ments. As
a re su lt, he a sse rt s, it is p os sib le that th e a mou nt i nc lud e s in sura

nc e pr e mium amou

nts a pp lic a ble toEdwar d finds evidenc e for the possibili ty that the ar rea rag e amount includes pr e-divorc e 1 expenses in the associate judge ’s finding , following the Novembe r 2005 h ea ri n g, that the amount includ ed “ bo th c hil d s up po rt arr e ars and

un ins ur e d me dic a l e xpe ns e s a nd me dic a l pr e miums re imb ur se me nt from Septembe r 1995 until Nove mber 14, 2005.” (Emphasis added)
. We note that during the de novo he aringin May 2006, a repr esentative of the Travis County Domestic Relations Offic e explained that the re fer ence to September 1995 de scribed the b egi nning of Vane ssa’s c ov e ra g e un de r h e r e mpl oy e r’ s h e a lthins ur anc e , n ot t he be g inn ing of the pe ri od fo r w hic h V a ne ssa so ug ht r e imb ur se me nt. Edwar d co n t ends that he w as informe d by a re prese ntative of the O ffice of the Attorne y 2 Ge ne ra l th a t hi s si g natur e wa s n ot a “ sig n o f a dmi ssi on ” to h im o wi ngthe state d a rr e ara g e a mou

nt, bu t w a s me re ly

to s ho w pr oo f of his pr e se nc e fo r m e diatio n, and that th e re pr e se ntativ e kn e w h e did not have a

nd could not a ffor d an attorney during the time of mediation. Howeve r, there is nothing in the rec ord that shows any such statements made to E dwar d, or even that an at t o rn ey gen era l re p re s en t at i v e m ad e a nap p ea ra n ce i nt h e N o v em b er 2 0 0 5 h ea ri n g.
3 Vane ssa’s individual cover ag e, o r that it includes expenses incurr ed prior to the divor ce in 2000. 1 Ed wa rd a lso a lle g e s th a t in

c on ne c tio n w ithhis arr e st, he had to p ay $3 ,8 27 , w hic h s ho uld be deduc ted from the a

rre ara g e amount. F urther, E dwar d claims that he ne ver r ece ived adva nce notice of a

ny incre ase in he alth insurance premiums, which the divorc e decr ee require s for Edwa rd to be re sponsible for any

such incre ase. H oweve r, the Associate J udg e’s Report Concer ning A g ree d Orde rs from the N ovember 2005 hear ing c ontains Edwar d’s sig nature under the caption

“ AG REE D A S TO B OT H FO RM A ND SUB STA

NC E. ” We r e c og nize tha

t so me c ourt s o f a

pp e a ls have held that such phra se does not, standing alone, e stablish a consent judg ment. Se e In re D. C. , 180 S .W.3d 647, 649-50 (Tex. App.—W aco 2005, no pe t.). Her e, howe ver, the re is additional ref ere nce to a

n ag ree ment of the pa

rties. The a

rre ara g e amount is set forth a s an “ag ree d condition,”
and the a sso c ia te jud g e ’s re po rt is style d as “C on c e rn ing Ag re e d O rd e rs .” Ed wa rd c ann ot, on

a pp e a l, seek to ove rturn an or der in a n amount to which he ha s ag ree d. 2We note that Edwar d had the oppor tunity to s ee k modification of his child support 3 p aym e n t s b e f

o r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u rto nM ar c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , b u th e f a i l e d t o a p p e ar i nc o u rto nt h a td a y. 4 Edwar d also complains of the district c ourt’s fa ilure to adjust the c h ild support
arr ear ag es to ref

lect time per iods betwee n the divorce and the hear ing dur ing w hich he wa s unemploy ed. A c ourt may mo d i fy an o rd er that provides for child support in the event of a chang e of c ircumstance s. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.401(a) (West Supp. 2008). Howeve r, such
a m o d i fi ca t i o no n l y

af fe ct s o b l i gat i o n s ac cr

u i n g after t h e p art y’ s a

p p e a r an c e i n t h e s u i tt o m o d i f y. See id. § 156.401(b). The district c ourt, there fore , did not have the a uthority to retroa ctively

reduc e the c hil d sup po rt arr e ara g e s bec a us e of a pa st c ha

ng e of c ir c ums tanc e s. Edwar d also alleg es that 3 the dis tr ic t c ourt re fu se d to a llo w him to pr e se nt do c ume nts of pr oo f r e g ard inghis un e mpl oy me nt, work, a nd school history . Howeve r, while Edwa rd re fer red to the doc uments during the de novo he ari ng , h e ne ve r atte mpt e d to int ro du c e the m int o e vid e nc e . Th e re fo re , the do c ume nts are no t in eviden ce a

nd there is no ruling of

the cour t keepingthem from beingadmitted for us to re view. Edwar d failed to pre serve any err or on this point. Se e Sp ar k s v . B oo th , 2 3 2 S. W. 3 d 853, 870 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pe t.).

Edwar d prese nts two additional complaints conce rning issues not before the district court inth e d e n o v o h e ar in g . F ir s t, h e c o mp la in s th a t V an e s s a v io late d th e d iv o r c e p e ti ti o n ’s require ment that Edwar d have visitation rig hts. Howeve r, t his issue was not raised in the tr ial court and, ther efor e, is waive d on appea l. See Tex. R. A p p . P
. 3 3
. 1 (a ). Edward also complains that his being “cha ined d o wn an d hand cuf fed like a

murdere r” violate d “his Civil R ights.” Ed wa rd ’s arr e st w a s a

re su lt o f a

c a pia s is su e d d

ue to h is f a ilure to a pp e ar i n c ourt

wh e n r e qu ir e d to5

do so. See Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 157.114. Edwa rd does not identify

a spec ific constitutional rig ht violated by his a

rre st, a nd we are unable to identify any constitutional viol ation on the re cord be fore
us. Cf. In re Gonzalez , 993 S.W .2d 147, 157-58 (T ex . Ap p.—San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (par ent may

be held in conte mpt and imprisoned for f ailure to pa

y child support). Having disposed of all of Edwar d Westbrook’s arguments on appea l, we af firm the
or de r o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: September

25, 2008