i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 45 5- CV IN THE I NT ER EST OF C. L.O . , AMin or Chi ld Fr om the 150th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2003-CI -19229 Honora ble David A. B erc helmann, Jr., J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 10, 2010 AFF I RMED J ames Ry an Oliver

appea ls the trial court’s or der modify ing ch i l d s u p p ort. We aff irm the
or de r o f t he tr ia l c ourt . B ACKG ROUND J ames a nd J ennife r divorce d in 2004. I n the divorce decr ee, J ames wa s order ed to pay $520 a mont h fo r child support on behalf of the c ouple’s only child, C.L .O. I n 2009, J ennife r filed a pe tit ion fo r m od if

ic a tio n. On

Ap ri l 7, 20 09 , a he ari ng wa s hel d on the iss ue of mod if ic a tio n. B oth parties a nd their counsel we re pr esent at the hear ing. A t that time, the parties ente red into a me diated
se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt s ta tin g tha t J a me s wou ld pay $6 18 a mon th in sup po rt purs ua nt t o guid e lin e s. On May 4, 2009, a sec ond hear ing was held so that the trial court could sig n the modification orde r.04
- 09
- 00 45 5- CV

- 2- J ames a nd J ennife r, alongwith their respe ctive attorne y s, were prese nt. At the hear ing, James’s attorney argued that the c hild support amount wa s inacc urate ly calc ulated base d solely

on J ames’s 2009 ear nings. Counsel reque sted that J ames be permitted t en mi nutes to explain why “he be lieves the numbers a

re inc orre ct.” The trial court replied that the amount of suppor t would be ca lculated based on curr ent pay stubs submitt ed by J ames. The court stated that James could later f ile a motion to modify ; counsel ag ree d, saying, “ that’s fine.” The parties then conf err ed and Jennifer ’s attorne y told the trial court that the pa rties had a g ree d t h at child s upport should be set at $619.80; James’s attorney did not object. At the end of the hear ing, J ames’s attorney reiter ated to the court that he r client was “ extremely

upset bec ause of the fac t that he didn’t g et to put on his testim ony .” The court replied that “[t] his . . . is a Rule 11 ag ree ment, there was a trial and these are the numbers a nd that’s what the Court is g oing to sig n.” J ames filed a m otion for new t rial, and at the hear ing on the motion he testified that he wa s not allowed to g ive testimony reg ardinghis income and the pr oper a mo u n t of child support at the May 4, 20 09 he aring. J ame s fu rt he r t e sti fi e d th a t c hil d s up po rt sh ou ld b e se t a t $4 43 a

mon th beca use his g ross income va

ries ea ch y ear

beca use he is paid h o u rl y . J ames a lso stated that the amount of child support orde red f ailed to a ccount for pay stubs he submitt ed beyond Marc h 2009, when he w a s e ar

n in g le s s mo n e y . T h e tr ia l c o u rt d e n ie d th e mo ti o n f o r n e w tr ia l an d

awa rded Jenn if e r $3 ,0 00 in a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. On a pp e a l, Jame s c on te nd s th e tr ia l c ourt de nie d h im d

ue pr oc e ss by ref using to a llow him to present testimony at the motion to sign orde rs hear ing, thus a llowing f or the entry of an e rrone ous child support order
.04
- 09
- 00 45 5- CV

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision modify ing c hild support fo r an a buse of discretion. W orford v. Stamper , 8 01 S.W. 2d 10 8, 10 8- 09 (T e x. 19 90 ); In re G.L.S. , 1 8 5 S. W. 3 d 5 6 , 5 8 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 05 , n o p e t.)
. To de te rm ine wh e the r a tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n, we mus t decide whether the t rial court acte d arbitra rily or unreasonably , that is, without refer ence to guiding rules or pr inciples. Downer v. Aquam arine Operators, Inc

. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-42 (Te x . 1985); In re S. B. C. , 9 52 S.W. 2d 15 , 1 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 19 97 , n o p e t.) . In ma kin g thi s deter mination, we view the e vidence in the light most fa vorable to the trial court’ s order , indulging
ever y leg al presumption in its favor. In re D.S. , 76 S.W. 3d 51 2, 51 6 (T e x. Ap p. — Ho us ton [14t h Dist.] 2002, no pet.). An abuse of discretion does not occur as long as there is some probative a nd substantive evidenc e to support the t rial cour t’s decision. Butnaru v . Ford Motor Co. , 84 S.W .3d 19 8, 21 1 ( Te x. 20 02 ) ( op . o n r e h’ g ); In re S. B. C. , 952 S.W .2d at 18. A trial cour

t may modify the am o u n t o f ch i ld support a per son is required to pa y if the
c ir c ums tanc e s o f t he c hil d o r a pe rs on a ff e c te d b y the or de r h a ve ma te ri a lly and su bs tanti a lly chang ed si nce the date of the orde r’s re ndition. T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 156.401 (Ve rnon 2008). The be st interest of the child is the predominant consideration in child support matters. In re S. B. C. , 952 S.W .2d at 17. J ames a sse rt s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ’s e nte ri ngof the mod if

ie d o rd e r v iol a te d h is du e pr oc e ss ri g hts be c a

us e he wa s n ot a llo we d th e op po rt un ity to e xpla in w hy

the in c ome state me nts us e d to calc ulate child support we re inc orre ct. Due proce ss require s a party to rec eive notice and have an opportunity

to be hear d. Cunningham v. Parkdale Bank , 660 S.W .2d 810, 813 (Tex. 1983) (noting fundame ntal fairne ss dic tates that a party must be g iven a r easona

ble opportunity

to be hea rd on the04
- 09
- 00 45 5- CV

- 4- merits of his case at a mea ningf ul time and in a meaning ful manner). The right to be heard inc ludes the rig ht to a full and fair hear ing befor e a court having jur isdiction over the matter
. Soefje v. J ones , 27 0 S. W.3 d 6 17 , 6 25 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 08 , n o p e t.) ; Jordan v. J ordan , 653 S.W .2d 356, 35 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Sa

n A nto nio 19 83 , n o w ri t). I t a lso e nta ils the ri g ht t o in tr od uc e e vid e nc e , to
ex am ine witnesses, a

nd to have judg ment rende red only afte r a tria l on the merits. S o e fje , 270 S.W .3d at 625. Here, the trial court c onducted two he aring s befor e sig ning the modification order
. Jame s w a s n oti fi e d o f b oth h earing s, pr e se nt at bo th h e ari ng s, and re pr e se nte d b y

c ouns e l a t bo th hear ings. The rec ord re flec ts that the modified amount of child support wa s based on 2009 pay stubs provided by

J ames a nd calc ulated ac cordingto guide lines. See T EX . F AM . C ODE ANN . § 154.063 (Ve rnon 2008) ( providing that par t i es ar e require d to produce copies of c urre nt pay stubs); id
. § 154.125 (Ve rnon Supp. 2009) (providing a presumptive child support g uideline of twenty perc ent for one child when the oblig or’s monthly net re source s are $7,500 or les s ). M o re over, James’s attorney ag ree d to the amount of child support. Acc ording ly , on this rec ord, we cannot c onclude that J ame s’s due proc ess rig hts were violated by the trial cour

t’s order . Fur

ther, the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion by

enter ing the modified order
. We overrule J ames’s issue on a ppeal a nd aff irm the jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt . Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice