1 ... T he H onorabl e Andy M i r el es pre s i ded o ver t he he ar i ng i n t he un derl y i ng caus e and ve r bal l y pronoun ced

the ru ling . T h e H o n o ra b le M ic h a e l P e d e n sign e d the o rd e r. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 93 0- CV IN THE INT EREST OF J.D.D. and M.R.D., Children Fr om the 408th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CI -04619 Honora ble Michae l Peden, J udg e Presiding 1 Opinion by : Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: September 2, 2009 AFF I RMED Andre a Romano appe als the trial cour t’s order modify ing the conser vatorship provisions of a divorc e dec ree by

appointing K enneth J. Durcan a s the prim ary joint manag ing c onservator of M.R.D. with the exclusi ve rig ht to desig nate M.R.D’s residenc e. On a ppeal, Romano c ontends the trial court abused its discr etion beca use the evidenc e did not support the trial cour t’s finding s that
a ma te ri a l and su

bs tanti a l cha

ng e ha d oc c ur

re d an d that modi fi c a tio n wa s in M.R.D .’ s bes t in te re st. Rom ano a lso c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt wa s p re c lud e d f

ro m mo dif

y ingthe c on ser vator sh ip “ du e to pattern or history of fa mily violence.” We affir

m the trial court’ s order
.04
- 08
- 00 93 0- CV

- 2- S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW I n de te rm ini ng iss ue s of pos se ssi on and a c c e ss, the pr ima ry c on sid e ra

tio n is a lw ay s th e be st interest of the child. I

n r e J
. S
. P. , 278 S.W .3d 414, 418 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, no pet.). Trial courts have broad discretion to deter mine what is in a child’s be st interest. Id . On appe al, we wi ll n ot d ist

ur b a tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r m od if y ingc on se rv a tor sh ip u

nle ss a c le ar a bu se of dis c re tio n is established by

the complaining party . Id
. B e c a us e c on se rv a tor sh ip d e te rm inatio ns are int e ns e ly fa c t dr ive n, the tr ia l c ourt is i n th e be st position t o observe the witnesses an d “fe el” the f orce s, powers, a

nd influence s that cannot be discerne d by

mere ly rea ding the rec ord. Id . at 418-19. We def er to t h e t ri al cour

t’s resolution of underlying f

acts a nd to cre dibilit y

deter minations that may

have a ffe cted its deter

mination, a

nd we wil l n o t s u bstitut e our judg ment for the tr ial court’s. In re A.L.E. , 2 7 9 S. W. 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 2 7 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2009, no pet.). L eg al and f actua l insufficienc y

challenges are not ind e pe nd e nt g ro un ds fo r a sse rt inge rr or in c us tod

y de te rm inatio ns , b ut a

re re le va nt f a c tor s in assessing whether the t rial court abused its discre tion. Id . at 42 7- 28 ; In re M .M.S. , 256 S.W .3d 470, 476 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). An abuse of discre tion does not occur if some evidenc e of a substantive and pr obative cha rac ter e x ists to s upport the trial cour t’s decision. In re A.L.E. , 279 S.W. 3d a t 42 8; In re M

.M.S. , 256 S.W .3d at 476.

D I S CUS S I ON I n her f irst issue, Romano contends the trial c ourt abused its discr et i o n i n modify ing the
conser vatorship provisi ons of t he parties’ divorce decr ee be cause all of the e ssential elements we re
no t e sta bli sh e d. A tri a l c ourt

may mod if y a c on se rv a tor sh ip or de r i f: (1 ) m od if ic a tio n w ou ld b e in04
- 08
- 00 93 0- CV

- 3- the best intere st of the child; and (2) the circ umstances of the child, a c onservator, or other person aff ecte d by the orde r have materia lly and substantially

chang ed since the date of the re ndition of the prior orde r. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 156.101 (Ve rnon 2008). I n decidingwhether a mater ial and
su bs tanti a l c ha

ng e of c ir c ums tanc e s h a s o c c ur re d, a tr ial court

is n ot c on fi ne d to ri g id o r d e fi nit e g uidelines. In re A.L.E. , 2 79 S.W. 3d a t 42 8; In re T.W

.E. , 217 S.W .3d 557, 559 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006 , n o p et .). Instead, the c ourt’s dete rmination is fact-spe cific a nd must be made
a c c o r d in g to th e c ir c u ms ta n c e s a s th e y ar ise
. In r e A
. L
. E. , 2 79 S.W. 3d a t 42 8; In re T.W

.E. , 217 S.W .3d at 559. A non-c omprehe nsive list of materia l ch ang es, as de scribed by other c ourts, can include (1) marria g e of one of the parties, (2) poisoning of the child’s mind by one of the parties, ( 3) chang e in the home surr oundings, ( 4) mistreatment of the child by a par ent or step- pare nt, or (5) a pare nt’s becomingan improper person to exerc ise custody
. In re A.L.E. , 279 S.W .3d at 428-29. Romano and Durc an divorce d in 2002, and Romano was a ppointed primary

joint manag ing
c on se rv a tor

of the pa rt ie s’ c hil dr e n, J.D. D. and M. R.D . In Ap ri l of 20 04 , Durc an fi le d a pe tit ion to modify conser vatorship, and the tr ial court sig ned temp o r a r y o r d e r s in N o v e mb er of

2004, appointing Durc an as pr imary

joint manag ing c onservator of M.R.D. The trial court sig ned the f inal order being appea led af

ter a hear ing in January

of 2008. M.R.D. w as twelve at the time of the 2008 hear ing. The e vidence established that since the parties’ divorce , M.R.D. beg an experienc ing dif ficulties in school due to his ADHD. H e re quired help with homework a

nd was having tr ouble in school with his behavior. The e vidence further
es ta b li s h e d th a t s in c e th e p arti e s ’ d iv o r c e , D u r c anw a s p la c e d o nd is a b il it y an d w a s r e c e iv ing disability benef i t s . Durc an had r emar

ried, a nd he stay ed at home w hile his wife wor ked. Dur can
was a ble to pick M.R.D. up from school a nd ensure that he complete d his homework, providing04
- 08
- 00 93 0- CV

- 4- assistance as nee ded. M.R.D. had be en re siding with D urca n under te mporary

order s since 2004 and had made signific ant prog ress in sc hool, inc luding be ing pla ced on the honor roll, since moving from a public school to a pr ivate school known for w orking with ADHD c hildren and w here M.R.D.
rec eived more individualiz ed attention. Rom ano wo rk e d f

ull -t ime , w hic h s ome tim e s r e qu ir e d M.R .D. t o b e le ft in t he c are of his sister, J .D.D., who wa s six teen at the time of t h e 2 0 0 8 h ea ri ng . Durc an testified that he believed J .D.D. wa s somewhat re sentful of b ei ng require d to car e for M.R.D., and J .D.D. sometimes
anta g on ize d M .R. D. by

c a lli nghim name s. Rom ano c on fi rm e d tha t J .D .D . w ou ld s ome tim e s c a ll M
. R
. D
. n a m e s a l t h o u g h R o m an o d i d n o tb e l i e v e t h e n a m e - c a l l i n g w a s i n t e n d e d i na n e g a t i v e w a y. Romano had take n the childre n to visit an ex-bo y fr i en d who was in prison and testified that she
wo uld c on tin ue to h a ve so me inv olv e me nt w ith the e x-bo y fr ie nd if he wa s pa ro le d. Th e re c or d a lso contains a c hild c ustody evaluation c onfirming that Romano interfe red with D urca n’s visitation, and bo th t he e va luatio n a

nd ano the r o rd e r c on ta ine d in the re c or d e sta

bli sh e d th a t Ro mano fa iled to fo l l o w t h ro u gh ap p ro p ri at el y wi t h t h e c h i l dre n ’s co u n s el i n g. I n a dd iti on

to t he fo re g oin g e vid e nc e , th e tr ia l c ourt int e rv ie we d M .R. D. of

f t he re c or d w ith only the attorne y

ad litem prese nt, and the attorne y ad litem stated on the re cord t h at M
. R .D. had progre s s ed i n Durc an’s c are and re commended that the status quo under the te mporary order s be
ma int a ine d. B a se d o n th e e vid e nc e pr e se nte d, the tr ial cou rt di d n ot a bu se its dis c re tio n in deter mining that the c ircumstance s of M .R.D. and Durcan had materia lly and substantially chang ed
and that mo dif

ic a tio n o f c on se rv a tor sh ip w a s in M. R.D .’ s b e st i nte re st. I n her second issue, Romano contends the tria l court wa s prec luded from modifying the order “due to pattern or hist ory of family violence.” Having revie wed the rec ord, however, no e vidence04
- 08
- 00 93 0- CV

- 5- was p r e s e n te d r e g ar d in g a p a tt e r n o r h is to r

y o f f a mi ly v io le n c e . A lt

h o u g h D u r c an had bee n diagnosed w i t h o b s es s i v e- co mp u l s i v e d i s o rd er an d p o s t -t ra u m at i c stress disorde r prior to the divorc e, he testified that he was takingmedication for those conditions, and no evidenc e was prese nted that he had a cted violently

toward his fa

mily or the c hildren. C ONCL US I ON The trial c ourt’s orde r is aff irmed. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice