NO. 07-08 -044 1-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A DE CE MB ER15, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MATTER OF THE MA RR IAGE OF W ILLIA M CO DY

H ESS AN D HO LLY E D AN IELLE H ESS

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 O F P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 76, 033- 2; H ON ORABLE PAM ELA S IR MO N, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, W il li am C ody H ess ( Cod y ), appeal s t he ent ry of an Ag re ed F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce. W e w il l re v erse and render i n par t and aff ir m in par

t. Backg ro und Cod y fil ed for divorce from appel lee , H oll y e D ani ell e Gray -H ess . Pr ior to tr ial on t he divorce, the par

ti es re ached an Ag re ement Inc ide nt t o D ivorce. O ne of the prov is ion s o f the a g re ement s tated that, “If Petit ion er [Cody] is depl oy ed w it h the US Ar my , t hen D ani el and Ka tr ina Kl aehn s hal l hav e the ri g ht to ex erci se v is it ati on w it h the par ti es’ min or

ch il d.” Before the trial cou rt ente red the agreed divorce decree, the Kla ehn s atte mp ted to exercise2

thei r v is it ati on r ig hts under the ag re ement on the basi s t hat Cody w as depl oy ed w it h the US Ar myw hil e s tati oned i n F ay ettev il le, N orth C aroli na. In respon se, H oll y e filed a M oti on for C lar ific ati on of Order for Poss ess ion or Acc ess that ask ed the tr ial cour t t o det er mine if Cody w as de ployed. At the f inal he aring in the divorce proceed ing, th e t ri a l c o u rtalso hea rd evi den ce relating to clarif ication o f the ph rase “military dep loyment .” Follow ing this hear ing , t he tr ial co urt ac cept ed th e par ti es’ ag re ement i nci dent to div orce and entered an Ag re ed F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce. H ow ev er , the tri al cour t add ed th e foll ow ing handw ri tten note int o the dec re e: The Co urt defin es “mi li tar y depl oy ment” as as si g nme n ts outs ide the cont ine ntal U nit ed St ates

. Proof, in w ri ti ng , of su ch depl oy ments must be prov ide d to Hol ly e Gray -H ess before Da nie l or Kat ri na Kl aehn are al lowed to exerci se W il li am H ess ’ ri g hts of poss ess ion

. The tr ial co urt di d not enter a spec ificfindi ng reg ardin g w hether C ody w as depl oy ed, b ut itca n be infer re d tha t t he tr ial co urt’ s a ddi ti on to the decree w as a r uli ng thatC ody w as not depl oy ed. By four is sues , C ody

appeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s a ddi ti ons to the Agreed F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce and t he tr ial co urt’ s i mpli ed r uli ng on w hether C ody w as depl oy ed. Ana lysis The dec re e defines “ mil it ar y depl oy ment” as “ mil it ar y duty ordered for a per iod of more than si x

months dur ing w hic h [C ody] w il l not b e prov ide d t h e o p ti o n o f being acc ompani ed by

the chi ld and w here the depl oy ment i s i n a l ocat ion w here ac ces s t o the child is not reaso nab ly

possible .” T his def inition tracks the statu tory def inition o f “militaryTh e Act repe aling se ction 153 .31 61 provides t hat“T he chan ges m ade b y this Act 1 appl y to a s uitaffect ing the parent- chi ld re lat ion shi p that is pendi ng in a tr ial courton the effect iv e da te o f

t h is Ac t [ September

1, 2009] or

fil ed on or

after thatdate .” Thus , t he defini ti on of “ mil it ar

y depl oy ment” prov ide d by the former

se cti on 153. 3161 i s t he l aw appl ic abl e to thi s c ase. 3 depl oy ment” found i n Tex as Fami ly C ode s ect ion 153 .3 161. See Act s 2 005, 79 Leg ., th R. S., ch. 916, § 13, 2005 Tex

. Gen. Laws 3148, 3152, re peal ed by , Acts 2009, 81 Leg ., st R. S., ch. 727, § 6, 2009 Tex . G en. L aws 1 851, 1855. 1 Dur ing the hear ing , H oll y e tes ti fied th at s he and the c hil d had li v ed w it h Cody i n an o f f-b a s e a p a rt m e n tin Fa ye tt e vil le , No rt h Ca ro li n a , fo r a p e ri o d o f t im e . I n a d d it io n , Ho ll ye tes ti fied th at s he has tak en th e c hil d to v is itC ody i n F ay ettev il le si nce the fil ing of the divorce. This evidence w as no t dispu t e d byCody. T hus, it is clear tha t the ev iden ce est abl is hes that Cod y , w hil e s tati oned i n F a yet te ville, pos ses ses the opti on of bei ng acc ompani ed by

the chi ld. Es sent ial ly , C ody ’s pos it ion at the hear ing w as that itwoul d not b e f in a n c ia ll y

or log istically

practical for him to be ab le to exercise his ri ghts to stan dard v is it ati on w hil e s tati oned i n N orth C aroli na. Howev er , we do n o t cons tr ue th e s tatut e to prov ide thatfinanc ial and log is ti cal hardshi ps are s uff ic ien t t o make ac ces s t o the ch il d not reaso nab ly

possible . Consequen tly , we conclud e tha t the ev iden ce con clusiv ely est abl is hed t hat C ody

fail ed to meet the defini ti on of “ mil it ar y depl oy ment” under eit her the sta tute or

the decree. As suc h, Cod y is not enti tl ed to invoke hisr ig ht t o al ter nate v is it ati on and we w il l aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s i mpli ed r uli ng thatC ody w as not d epl oy ed. In rega rd t o the tr ial co urt’ s a ddi ti on of ter ms t o the ag re ed dec re e, ap pel lan t conc eded at oral arg ument that he w oul d be w il li ng to acc ept t he tr ial co urt’ s req uirementW h il e o u r re fo rm a t io n o f t h e ju d gm e n tis b a s e d o n t h e p a rt ie s ’ a gre e m e n t , we 2 bel iev e tha t t he l aw

su ppor ts thi s d is posi ti on. Sect ion 153. 3161 i nit ially p ro vide d for alt er nate v isi ta ti o n w henev er a pa rty w as “d epl oy ed out si de of the Uni ted S tates .” Acts 200 5, 79 Leg., R.S., ch. 916 , § 13, 200 5 T e x . Gen . Laws 3148, 315 2. How ever, this

th “o uts ide of

the Uni ted States ” la ng uag e w as remov ed and re pla ced w it h the defini ti on of “mi li tar y depl oy ment” di sc uss ed abov e by a 20 07 amendment

. See A cts 2007, 80 Leg ., th R. S., ch. 972, § 8, 2007 Tex

. Gen. Laws 3390, 3392. Thus, w e ag re e w it h C ody thatthe leg is lat iv e hi sto ry

of the s tatut e es tabl is hes that the t rial c our t abu sed it s d is creti on by addi ng the “o uts ide of the c onti nental Uni ted Stat es” re q uirement t o the st atuto ry defini ti on of the phrase “mi li tar

y depl oy ment.” 4 that he prov ide w ri tten noti ce of de plo y ment to Hol ly e before invoki ng his r ig ht t o al ter nate v is it ati on. Base d s ole ly on t his co nces si on and w it hout address ing the meri ts of the i ss ue, w e w il l aff ir m thatpor

ti on of the decree. Fur ther , bot h i n her

br ief and dur ing arg uments before t his C our

t, Hol ly e i ndi cat ed th at s he woul d be w il li ng to ag re e to the delet ion of the “o uts ide of the c onti nental Unit ed States ” por ti on of the decree’ s d efini ti on of depl oy ment. As a result, we w ill reform th e de cree to d elete the sent ence “Th e Court de f ines ‘military depl oy ment’ as as si g nments outs ide the cont ine ntal U nit ed St ates .” 2 Finally , w hile Cody raised an issue regarding the const itution ality of the trial court’s action s in his brief , he con cede d du ring oral argume nt th at th is issue w as no t raised be fore the t ri al cour

t and i s, therefore, w aiv ed. Con cl usi on For the fo re goi n g reason s, w e rev erse that por ti on of the Ag re ed F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce that sta tes that“ The Co urt defin es ‘mi li tar y depl oy ment’ as assi g nments outs ide the c onti nental U nit ed St ates ” and render j udg ment t hat t he s ame i s s tr ic ken from the5

Ag re ed F ina l Dec re e of Di v orce. I n al l other respects, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice