Court Opinion

ID: 9763707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:52:48.409747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:48.675087
License: Public Domain

*737WALLACE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Section 14.08(c)1, in clear and simple language, states:
After a hearing the court may modify an order or portion of a decree that:
(1) designates a managing conservator if the circumstances of the child or parent have so materially and substantially changed... (Emphasis added).
Section 11.01(3) defines parent as a mother or, a man as to whom the child is legitimate, or an adoptive mother or father. The court’s opinion ignores the definition prescribed by the Legislature and, through what I feel is erroneous reasoning, finds that when the Legislature said parent, it did not mean parent. The court’s reason for ignoring the obvious legislative intent is their belief that a change in the circumstances of a possessory conservator can never result in injury to the child due to the retention of the existing managing conservator.
Trial judges may name a parent managing conservator even though he or she is providing the bare minimum of counsel, direction, discipline and support to the child. Such appointment is made necessary because the other parent would provide even less. Once the possessory conservator straightens out his or her life and is in a position to provide both the tangible and intangible factors necessary for full development of the child, it could be injurious to the child not to be provided with those factors. Under the majority decision as long as the circumstances of the managing conservator, no matter how poor, remain the same as at the date of the custodial order, and no matter what improvements the possessory conservator has experienced, the trial judge is precluded from acting in the best interest of the child. I find no such legislative intent expressed in the Family Code.
The Legislature places upon the trial judge the onerous burden of determining what is in the best interest of the child. Section 14.08(c)(1), if interpreted according to its obvious meaning, gives the trial judge the opportunity to examine all the facts available and then make his informed decision, rather than restricting him to a consideration of only a part of the facts, as is the case under the majority holding. Determination of the best interest of the child is the responsibility of the trial judge. That determination can best be made only after consideration of all facts influencing the child. We should not put blinders on the trial judge and still expect him to make informed decisions.
McGEE and DENTON, JJ., join in this dissent.

. All references are to Tex.Fam.Code Ann.