Opinion filed May 14, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 02 55 -CV

____ ____ __ IN TH E INT ERE ST OF B. R. P. , ACH ILD

On App eal from the 326th Distric t Court

Taylor County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 37992-C

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from t he trial court’s order on the conservatorship of B.R.P. The trial c ourt enter ed its final dec ree of divorce for Tr ace y J ean Perkins and R onald Edward P erkins on May 14, 200 7

. T h e trial c ourt appointed Tr ace y and Ronald joint manag ing c onservators of B .R.P. and

awa rded Ronald the r ight to desig nate the c hild’s primary residenc e. We af

firm. I n h e r s ole iss ue on

a pp e a l, T ra c e y

argue s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n in appointing Ronald as a joint mana g ing conser vator. The trial court’s deter mination of

conser vatorship is review ed for

abuse of discretion. Naguib v . Na gu ib , 1 3 7 S. W. 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 0 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2004, pe t. denied). A court abuses its discretion when it ac ts without refer ence to any g uiding r ules or princ iples. Downer v. Aquamarine Ope rators, Inc

. , 7 0 1 S. W. 2 d 2 3 8 , 2 4 1

- 4 2 ( T e x. 1985). A trial c ourt’s dete rmination of the best intere st of the child will only be re verse d upon a2

deter mination of an abuse of discretion beca use the trial court is in the best situation to obser ve the demea nor and pe rsonalities of the witnesse s. Naguib , 137 S.W .3d at 371. The Te x as F amil y

Code establishes a r ebuttable pr esumption that the appointment of the pare nts of a child as joint mana g ing c onservators is in the best interest of the c hild. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN . § 153.131(b) ( Ver

non 2 0 0 8 ). Howeve r, T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN . § 153.004 (Ve rnon 2008) pr ov ide s: (a) I n deter mining whe ther to ap p o int a party as a sole or

joint manag ing conser vator, the c ourt shall consider e vidence of the in t en t i o nal use of a busive phy sical for ce by

a par ty ag ainst the party ’s spouse, a pa rent of the ch i l d , or any person y oung er than 18 y ear s of age committed within a two-y ear period pre ceding the filing of the suit or duringthe pende ncy of the suit. (b ) T he c ourt

may no t a pp oin t jo int

mana g ingc on se rv ato rs if c re dib le evidenc e is prese nted of a history or pa t t er n of past or pr esent c hild neg lect, or phy sical or se x ual abuse by one pare nt dir ecte d ag ainst the other pa rent, a spouse, or a c hil d.

.. . I t is a re bu tta

ble pr e su mpt ion that the a pp oin tme nt of a pa

re nt as the so le mana g ing c on se rv a tor of

a c hil d o r a s th e c on se rv a tor wh o h a s th e e xclu siv e ri g ht t o de te rm ine the p r i m ar

y r e s i d e n c e o f

a c h i l d i s n o ti nt h e b e s ti n t e r e s to f t h e c h i l d if c re dib le e vid e nc e is p re se nte d o f a his tor y or patte rn of pa st or pr e se nt c hil d n e g le c t, or phy sical or se x ual abuse by that pare nt directe d ag ainst the other pa rent, a spouse, or a c hild.
Trac ey argues that there was c redible e vidence of Ronald’s ac ts of family violence w ithin the two y e ars pr e c e din g the fi lin g of the su it. Ron a ld a nd Tr a c e y we re marr ie d in

Oc tob e r 1 99 2. Tr a c e y ha d tw o so ns , Ste ve n and Chr is, from pre vious relationships. B.R.P. was born June 3, 1997. Trac ey test i fi ed t h at R onald ca

n be phy sically

and ver bally abusive. She testified that, on one occ asion, he knoc ked her son, Steven, to the g round. Howe ver, Steve n was twe nty y ea rs o l d at the time. Trac ey further testified that Ron a ld “ ba c kh and e d” Chr is f or no t pi c kin g up his c lot

he s. Tr a c e y

state d th a t Ro na ld j e rk e d B .R. P. by her a rm when B .R.P. would not pick up her toy s. She also stated that Ronald had B .R.P. st and in the corne r for

punishment and that B.R.P. started c rying. Rona ld took off his belt and hit the filing cabine t with the belt, telling B .R.P. t hat he would “ g ive [her] a rea son to cry .” Chris testified that he had lived w ith Ronald for thirteen or fourtee n y ear s. Chris stated that Ron a ld h a d b e e n p hy sic a lly a g g re ssi ve wi th h im at time s and ha d ba c kh and e d him an d cu sse d at h im.3

Chr is s a id t

hat Ro na ld d id no t us e pr of ane langua g e wi th B .R. P. Chri s a c kn ow le dg e d th a t Ro na ld did not “pick on him” without rea son but disciplined him as a father

. Ronald testified and a cknowled ged p h y s ical discipline of the c hildren. Ronald stated that both he and Trac ey spanked the children with a wooden pa ddle. Ronald admitted losing his temper with Chris and slapping Chris in the fa ce. Rona ld further admitted spanking Steven wi th a spark plug w ire a

nd backha

nding Steve n. Ste ve n tes tif

ie d at tr ia l th a t T ra c e y

us ua lly wo rk e d n ig hts and

that Ro na ld t oo k c are of

him , his brother, a

nd B.R.P. Steven stated that B .R.P. shoul d live wi t h R o n ald i n the Abilene a rea
. Da nie lle Star h a d k

no wn Ron a ld a nd Tr a c e y fo r t

we lve y e ars . D anie lle te sti fi e d th a t Ro na ld w a s a g ood fathe r t o all three children. Danielle f urther te stified that the childre n wer e we ll-behave d and trea ted R on a ld

w it h r e s p e c t. D an ie ll e s tate d th a t i t w o u ld

b e b e s t f o r B

. R. P. to li v e w it

h Ro nald. J ulie Br isco, Tra cey ’s frie nd, also testified that it would be best for B.R.P. to live with Ronald. I f cr edible evide nce is pre sented of a history or patter n of past or prese nt phy sical abuse by one par ent direc ted ag ainst the other pa rent or a child, the trial court may not a ppoint joint manag ing

conser vators. Section 153.004(b) . Family violence is a

n act that is intended to result in phy sical ha rm , b od ily in

jur y , a ssa ult , o r s e xua l a ssa

ult or that is a thr e a t th a t r e a so na

bly pla c e s th e fa

mil y
memb e r in f e ar o f im mi n e n t p h y s ic a l h ar

m, b o d il y in ju r y , a s s a u lt , o r s e xu a l a s s a

u lt b u t d o e s n ot include def

ensive mea sures to protec t oneself. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 71.004(1) ( Ver non 2008). F a m i l y v i o l e n c e i s a l s o a

b u s e b y a m e mb e r o f a

f a m i l y t o w ar d

a c h i l d o f t h e f a m i l y. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 7 1

. 0 0 4 (2 ) (Ve rnon 2008). Abuse is defined a s mental or emotional injury to a child that results in observa

ble and mate rial impairment in the child’s g rowth, development, or psy cholog ical fu nc tio nin g or p hy si cal inj ur y tha t r e su lts in s ub sta

nti a l ha rm to t he c hil d, e xclu din g re a so na ble dis c ipl ine by

a pa re nt t hat do e s n ot e xpos e the c hil d to a su bs tanti a l r isk

of ha rm
. T EX
. F AM
. C ODE ANN
. § 261.001(1)( A), (C) (Ve rnon 2008); Stucki v. Stuc ki , 222 S.W .3d 116, 123 (Tex. App.—Ty ler 2006, no pet.). Ronald acknow ledg ed spankingSteven with a spark plug wire; however, the rec ord does not indicate that that incide nt occur red w ithin two y ear s from t he fili ng of t he suit. Moreove r, Steven did not testify that Ronald abused him or a ny of the c hildren. See Stuc ki , 2 22 S.W. 3d a t 12 4. Ron a ld further acknow ledg ed losinghis temper with Chris and slapping C h ri s i n t h e face . There was4

t es t i m o n y t h at C h ri s h ad a re d m ar k o n h i s fa ce fo r t wo d ay s , b u tR o n al d d o es n o tre ca l l l ea v i n g a mark on Chris. Ther e was conflicting evidenc e on whether Chris suffe red a phy sical i njury , and the evidenc e does not show that the sla p resulted in substantial harm to Chris. Id . The re cord shows that Trac ey left Chris with Ronald when she moved to L as Ve g as, Ne vada, indicating that she did not fear for his saf

ety while living with Ronald. Se e Hi nkl e v. Hin k le , 2 2 3 S. W. 3 d

7 7 3 , 7 8 2 ( T e x. App.—Dallas 2007, no pe t.). There is no evidence that Ronald abused B .R.P. or that B.R.P. suffere d any phy sical injury resulting in substantial harm. Stucki , 222 S.W .3d at 124. Ag ain, Tra cey left B .R.P. i n Ronald’s ca re when she worke d in Fort Worth, and she allowed B.R.P. to live with Ronald while she moved to L as Veg as. Se e Hi nk

le , 2 23 S.W. 3d

a t 78 2. Th e re c or d s ho ws that Ro na ld us ed ph y sica l f or c e in disciplining the c hildren, but the rec ord does not suppor t a finding of a history

or patter n of phy sical

a bu se . T he re c or d s ho ws that Ro na ld h it T ra c e y on on e oc c a sio n; ho we ve r, that wa s p ri or to t he ir marria g e and doe s not support a finding of a history or patter n of abuse under the statute. There was
no pr ote c tiv e or de r r e nd e re d a g a ins t Ro na ld d ur ingthe marr ia g e or duri ngthe pe nd e nc y of the su it. S ee Stuc ki , 2 2 2 S. W. 3 d a t 1 2 3

. We c an n o t c o n c lu d e f r o m th e r e c o r d b e f

o r e u s th a t th e trial court

a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in a

pp oin tin g Ron a ld a s joi nt mana g ing c on se rv a tor wi th t he ri g ht t o e sta

bli sh the primary

residenc e of B .R.P. Trace y ’s sole issue on appe al is overr uled. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

J I M R. W RI GHT

CH I EF JUSTI CE
May 14, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.