Opinion ID: 6109814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Family Code Chapter 42

Text: Section 42.002 of the Family Code authorizes a civil action against a person who takes or retains possession of a child or who conceals the whereabouts of a child in violation of a possessory right of another person. 15 A possessory right is a court-ordered right to possession of or access to a child, including conservatorship, custody, and visitation. 16 The standard possession order granting Father visitation with Mike beginning in June 2008 gave Father possessory rights under the Family Code, and no one disputes that Mother retained possession of Mike in violation of Father's right of possession for some periods in 2008 and 2009. The focus here, however, is not on Mother's flagrant violations but whether Grandparents, under the peculiar and outlandish facts present here, are liable under Family Code Section 42.003 for assis[ting] her in doing so. Section 42.003 imposes civil liability for assisting interference with a possessory right: A person who aids or assists in conduct for which a cause of action is authorized by this chapter is jointly and severally liable for damages. 17 When the alleged assister is not a party to the suit generating the possession order, the person is not liable unless, at the time of the violation, the person had actual notice of the existence and contents of the order or had reasonable cause to believe that the child was the subject of an order and that the person's actions were likely to violate the order. 18 Father alleges Grandparents violated Section 42.003 by aiding or assisting Mother in violating his right to possess Mike under the standard possession order. Grandparents contend Section 42.003 applies only in child-abduction cases and that their actions do not constitute assistance under Chapter 42. We need not decide whether Chapter 42 applies in non-abduction cases because we conclude the evidence is legally insufficient to establish a violation even if the statute is not limited to abductions. Liability under Family Code Chapter 42 can arise in two ways: interfering with a possessory right and aiding the one who interferes with a possessory right. 19 Liability for the latter is necessarily derivative of the former. Thus, even though Father did not sue Mother, he nevertheless had to prove she interfered with his possessory rights to sustain a claim that Grandparents assisted Mother's interference. 20 Father has focused much attention throughout this litigation on Mother's seventeen-month  machination to deny him possession. But Chapter 42 does not cover mere schemes. Section 42.003 allows liability for assisting in conduct for which a cause of action is authorized by this chapter, 21 and a cause of action is authorized for actually tak[ing] or retain[ing] possession of a child or conceal[ing] the child's whereabouts, 22 not for planning to do so. Under the standard possession order, Father was entitled to possession in specified circumstances. Thus, Father had to prove he was denied possession during those specific times and that Grandparents aided those particular violations. Grandparents testified they never received a copy of the standard possession order, and Father adduced no evidence to the contrary. Both Grandmother and Grandfather testified they were generally aware of a custody order and that Father was entitled to some periods of possession but they did not know the details. 23 Because they had no knowledge of the order's contents, Father was required to produce evidence that, at the time of the violation, Grandparents had reasonable cause to believe their actions would likely violate an order. 24 The trial court found Grandparents aided only one specific violation of the standard possession order-the two-hour birthday-party weekend. Everyone agrees Father was entitled to possession starting at 6:00 p.m. on Friday and that Mother violated the standard possession order by not producing Mike at the appointed time. But the evidence is legally insufficient to show Grandparents assisted this violation. There is no evidence Grandparents knew Mother was planning to deny Father possession. The record shows that after Father spoke to Grandmother earlier in the week and told her he would pick up Mike at 6:00 p.m. Friday evening to exercise his weekend possession, Mother asked Grandmother to take the boys to a birthday party she said she had forgotten about. Nothing indicates Grandmother had reason to attribute a sinister motive to this request as opposed to a minor adjustment of custody times that happens routinely in divorced families. Though Father testified he frequently communicated with Grandmother about securing visitation, Father did not contact Grandmother to inquire about Mike's whereabouts, ask that he be produced at the appointed time, or request his return after the party. No evidence supports the conclusion that, given these circumstances, Grandmother would have a reasonable belief that taking the boys to a birthday party for two hours, at Mother's request, would constitute a violation of any court order. Nor is there any evidence Grandparents assisted any violation as to the remainder of this weekend. The morning after the party, Mother unexpectedly dropped the boys off with Father, but within two hours, she had called 911 to make the first false sexual-abuse allegation. The police and DFPS began investigating, and Mike was taken to the hospital for a sexual-assault examination. Afterward, Mother took Mike to her parents' house and asked them to keep the boys until a DFPS interview the following week, stating the authorities had advised her not to have contact with the boys until the interview to avoid any accusations of brainwashing. Given these circumstances,  Grandparents would not have reasonable cause to believe that keeping the boys, rather than immediately sending them back to the house in which Mike had allegedly been sexually abused only hours before, would constitute a violation of a court order. Rather than identifying any other specific instance that Mother violated Father's possessory rights as a predicate to analyzing whether Grandparents aided those violations, the trial court based Grandparents' liability only on the two-hour birthday-party-weekend violation and from that concluded Grandparents' participation in that violation snowballed into the catastrophe underlying this litigation. This was error. Even if the evidence was sufficient to hold Grandparents liable for that single violation, it would not give rise to perpetual liability for all Mother's future violations. Each violation of court-ordered period of possession must be proven separately and specifically. 25 The trial court's findings included vague language about Grandparents assisting on other important dates but provided no detail. This finding is insufficient to support a claim for assisting interference with a possessory right because it does not identify any such interference and none is apparent from the record. 26 The trial court mentioned a few other dates that Mother denied Father possession, though it never explicitly found Grandparents assisted these violations. Assuming the trial court's other important dates language was meant to refer to these dates, the evidence is legally insufficient that Grandparents assisted these violations. The trial court found Father was denied possession during the operation of the safety plan, but Father consented to the plan, which DFPS required Grandparents to sign to prevent the children from going to foster care. In these circumstances, Grandparents would not have reasonable cause to believe supervising the children would violate a court order. The trial court found that Mother and Bruno specifically prevented Father's possession in March and December of 2009, but no evidence exists that Grandparents were involved in or even knew about these incidents. Indeed, it is undisputed that Grandmother was hospitalized in late 2008 and then again for several months in early 2009, during which she and Grandfather did not care for the boys at all. Father points to evidence he claims shows assistance, including frequent telephone calls between Mother and Grandmother; Grandparents' failure to tell DFPS material information about Mother; Grandfather misleading DFPS about the relative parenting abilities of Father and Mother; and Grandparents watching the boys when Mother worked the weekend graveyard shift. But none of this evidence is linked to a finding of a specific time that Mother violated Father's possessory rights; accordingly, Grandparents cannot be liable under Section 42.003 based on this evidence.