Court Opinion

ID: 9411866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 07:09:26.165516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:15.973009
License: Public Domain

In The

                            Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                          __________________

                          NO. 09-21-00219-CV
                          __________________

                  IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.C.
__________________________________________________________________

            On Appeal from the 279th District Court
                    Jefferson County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. F-237,733
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Complaining the trial court abused its discretion in granting

Mother “the exclusive right to designate their son Blake’s primary

residence within Jefferson County, Texas, and contiguous counties, OR

Washington State,” Father appealed. 1 Based on the evidence the trial

court heard in the hearing it conducted in this suit affecting their parent-

child relationship (SAPCR) on Mother’s petition to resolve issues of

     1We use pseudonyms to protect the minor’s identity. Tex. R. App. P.

9.8 (Protection of Minor’s Identity in Parental-Rights Termination
Cases).
                                 1
conservatorship, possession, and access, we conclude that Father has not

established an abuse of discretion occurred. For the reasons explained

below, we will affirm.

                              Background

     The information we present in this section is based on Mother’s and

Father’s testimony from the hearing the trial court conducted on

Mother’s SAPCR. Mother and Father were the only witnesses who

testified during the hearing. According to Mother, Mother and Father

never married. The testimony shows that in 2018, Mother and Father

began a long-distance relationship while Mother was working as a

physician’s assistant in Dallas and Father was working at a refinery in

Southwest Louisiana while living in Beaumont.

     In 2019 and before Blake was conceived, Mother’s relationship with

Father became more serious, and she decided to move closer to where

Father lived. Mother moved to Houston after finding a job at a cardiology

clinic there. After Mother began living in Houston, she became pregnant,

which according to Mother left her with two choices: (1) move to Seattle,

Washington, which is where she grew up so that her family could help

                                   2
her when she had her baby; or (2) move to Beaumont, where Father lived

so that he could help her raise the child.

     Mother chose to move to Beaumont, although she claimed that

Father told her he would support her decision if she chose to move to

Seattle if things didn’t work out. Mother bought a home in a new

subdivision, which was being developed in Beaumont. Father did not help

buy the home.

     That November, Mother and Father moved into the home.

However, Mother couldn’t find work as a physician’s assistant in

Beaumont, so she continued to commute to Houston for work.

     In March 2020, Blake was born. According to Mother, she returned

to work three months later. Mother explained that despite Father’s

promise to help her with the baby, to pay the household’s bills, and to

support her moving back to Washington should things not work out, none

of his promises turned out to be true. Because Mother and Father had

full-time jobs, Mother hired a nanny to care for Blake. Mother explained

that on occasion when she came come home from work, she found Father

playing video games while the nanny was taking care of Blake.

                                    3
     During the hearing, Mother explained why she wanted to raise

Blake in Washington. Her testimony focuses on the support structure she

claims is available to here there because her parents, family, and friends

live in that state. Mother added that were the court to expand her rights

to include designating Blake’s primary residence in the state of

Washington, it would be beneficial to Blake because he would have family

there to care for him while she was at work. According to Mother, another

benefit to Blake would be that she has an extensive network of friends in

Washington who have children around Blake’s age, children who are

available to play with Blake. According to Mother, she does not have a

similar network in Texas since other than Father, she has no other

friends.

     Mother explained why having a support system available where a

member of her family could take care of Blake when she was at work or

he was sick would help her financially, explaining she wouldn’t be

required to hire a nanny so that she had to take time off from her job.

Mother added that missing work was difficult for her because her

occupation as a physician’s assistant required her to cancel her schedule

when she missed work. Mother pointed to several times that had occurred

                                    4
in the past year, as Father wouldn’t take time off from his job to take care

of Blake.

     Mother described the number of family members she has in

Washington, and she testified they were available and willing to help her

raise Blake. She also described the types of recreational opportunities

she enjoyed while a child growing up, and she told the trial court that

these were opportunities she wanted Blake to experience during his

childhood too.

     Father’s testimony focused on his desire to have Blake available in

Beaumont or a surrounding county so that he could exercise his rights of

visitation. Currently, Father lives in Beaumont in a home that he leases

with his parents. Father’s testimony shows he graduated from high

school in Beaumont and then attended college in Abilene to play football,

where Father’s parents moved with him so they could “help [him] out.”

Father met Mother in 2018, and after leaving college, he moved back to

Beaumont with his parents. Mother decided to move to Houston to be

closer to Father because their relationship became more serious and

because Mother is licensed in Texas as a physician’s assistant.

                                     5
       Father described what ties him to Beaumont and to southeast

Texas during the hearing. According to Father, four members of his

family currently reside in Beaumont—an older brother, his parents, and

his maternal grandmother. Father also has two other brothers, one who

lives in Lake Charles, Louisiana, and the other who lives in Michigan.

Father’s maternal grandmother is a resident of Beaumont, but Father

didn’t explain whether his grandmother lives with his parents in the

home he leases or whether she has a separate home. Father said his

extended family—his aunts, uncles, and cousins—live in Louisiana.

Father testified he is employed as an operator planner at a chemical

plant near Lake Charles, Louisiana. According to Father, he is not

planning to change jobs, but if he does get transferred, his opportunity

for a transfer would be to a company plant in South Africa. Father also

explained that he earns approximately $65,000 per year in his current

job.

       The trial court heard testimony that even though Father is the non-

custodial parent to a ten-year-old son, Justin, he has developed a good

relationship with him despite that Justin now lives in Tyler, Texas with

                                     6
his mother. 2 Father’s custodial rights to Justin are governed by SAPCR

order, signed by the judge of the 326th District Court of Taylor County.

The geographical provision in that order allows Justin’s mother to

“determine the child’s primary residence without regard to geographic

location.”

     As Father tells it, he did try to help Mother with Blake. For

example, Father testified that he changed Blake’s diapers when they

were soiled, that on occasion he changed Blake’s diaper at night and

would then take Blake to Mother, and that on occasion, he put Blake to

bed. Father agreed, however, that he never fed Blake, but he explained

he didn’t do so because Blake was breastfed. Father also denied that

playing video games kept him from caring for Blake. He testified he

played video games as a way to unwind. However, Father didn’t deny

that as of August 2020, when Mother evicted Father from the home, he’d

spent 528 hours playing just one specific game. Father asked the court to

downplay the time he was spending playing video games, explaining the

games were played “during COVID[,]” and he testified he would never

play games over caring for his son. Father agreed that he refused to take

     2A pseudonym.

                                   7
off from his job on the one occasion that Mother asked him to leave work

to care for Blake.

     Except for the desire Father expressed to have Blake located where

he could exercise his right to visitation, Father’s remaining testimony

focused on the degree to which Father’s family members were likely to

assist Mother with Blake’s care should the trial court place restrict

Mother to living in Jefferson County or surrounding counties. When

questioned about why his parents hadn’t provided more assistance than

they did in caring for Blake, Father blamed Mother, claiming she

wouldn’t allow his parents to keep Blake because “they didn’t meet [her]

guidelines of having shots and records of vaccines.”

     At the court’s request, Mother clarified that before allowing others

to care for Blake, she wanted them to have two shots, one for the flu and

another for Tetanus, Diptheria, and Pertussis (TDAP). Mother told the

court that these shots guard a child against “the two most common killers

for infants one-year-old.” Father also testified that when he talked to his

mother about caring for Blake, she told him “she could watch [Blake] but

only [at] . . . certain times.” Father didn’t explain whether he spoke to his

father about whether he was available to keep Blake so that Mother and

                                     8
Father could work. In general, Father testified his family “was not

attentive” to Blake after Blake was born, and he agreed that Mother’s

family “was excited” about “bringing in a new life to the family[.]”

      In August 2020, Mother notified Father that she was evicting him

from her home, and she also filed the SAPCR that same month. When

the trial court signed the temporary orders, the court appointed Mother

and Father as Blake’s joint managing conservators. Under the temporary

orders, the trial court gave Mother the exclusive right to designate

Blake’s primary residence within Jefferson County and contiguous

counties. 3

      Before any evidence was presented in the hearing, Mother told the

trial court she wanted the geographical restriction in the final order

expanded so that as the child’s managing conservator (custodial parent),

her rights included the right to designate Blake’s primary residence in

Washington. Otherwise, Mother said she was satisfied with having the

parties’ duties and obligations remain as those the trial court gave them

in the temporary orders. In response, Father told the trial court that he

      3The temporary orders address visitation and child support, but we

have left out the details regarding those rights and obligations because
they are not relevant to the sole issue Father raised in his appeal.
                                     9
opposed Mother’s request to expand the geographical restriction to

include Washington. And he also wanted the trial court to expand his

visitation so the beginning and ending periods of possession were

consistent with the periods in a standard possession order. 4 Mother

agreed to Father’s request, leaving Mother’s request the sole issue left

unresolved.

      When the hearing ended, the trial court granted Mother’s request.

The trial court told the parties that Mother would be responsible “for

getting [Blake] to the airport . . . at her cost. It’s her cost round-trip. . . .

so that’s at least once a month.” The trial court explained the remaining

details would be in the trial court’s order, stating “we’re not go[ing to]

relitigate whatsoever the geographic restriction. It is what it is.” In the

section of the trial court’s final Order addressing the parties’

conservatorship rights, the trial court found that its “orders are in the

best interest of the child.” As to the geographical restriction, the final

Order grants Mother:

      the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the
      child within Jefferson County, Texas, and contiguous
      counties, OR Washington State.

      4See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 153.316, .317

                                       10
The clerk’s record does not show that Father filed a request asking the

trial court to state in writing its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 5

                            Standard of Review

      The Texas Family Code directs that the child’s best interest “shall

always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the

issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.” 6 We

review a trial court’s rulings on these issues under an abuse-of-discretion

standard. 7 “A trial court’s determination of what is in the child’s best

interest, specifically the establishment of terms and conditions of

conservatorship, is a discretionary function.” 8 A trial court abuses its

discretion when it acts “without reference to any guiding rules or

principles; or in other words, [when it acts] arbitrarily or unreasonably.”9

Thus, “[m]erely because a trial court may decide a matter within its

discretion in a different manner than an appellate court would in a

      5See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296.
      6See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.002 (“The best interest of the child

shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the
issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”).
      7Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982).
      8In re J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2021).
      9Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990).

                                     11
similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion

has occurred.” 10

                               Analysis

                       Geographical Restriction

     When a trial court appoints parents as joint managing

conservators, the court must either “establish, until modified by further

order, a geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the

child’s primary residence” or “specify that the conservator may determine

the child’s primary residence without regard to geographic location.”11

The evidence shows that Mother and Father moved to Beaumont and

began living together in November 2019, but never married. By February

2020, Mother and Father had separated, and in March 2020, Blake was

born. Although Father later moved back in the home, Mother evicted

Father in August 2020 and sued to establish her rights and duties along

with Father’s rights and duties to Blake.

     Even though the Family Code doesn’t provide the factors a trial

court should follow when deciding whether the custodial parent should

     10In re C.J.H., 79 S.W.3d 698, 702 (Tex. 2002).
     11Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.134(b)(1)(A), (B).

                                   12
be restricted to raising her child in Texas when the custodial parent

desires to move with the child and live in another state, the Texas

Supreme Court outlined relevant considerations in Lenz v. Lenz, 79

S.W.3d 10, 15-17 (Tex. 2002). In Lenz, the Texas Supreme Court

addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting a

jury’s verdict favoring her request to modify a provision in her divorce

decree, which restricted the geographical residence of her children to

Texas, so that she could move with her children to Germany. 12 The Lenz

Court considered the following factors in determining whether relocation

was in the best interest of the Lenz’s children: (1) the reasons for and

against the move; (2) the effect on extended family relationships; (3) the

effect on visitation and communication with the possessory conservator

to maintain a full and continuous relationship with his children; (4)

whether the proposed visitation schedule would allow the possessory

conservator to have a meaningful relationship with his children; and (5)

the nature of contact the children have with both parents, and the age,

community ties, health and educational needs of the children involved.13

     12Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 12 (Tex. 2002).
     13Id. at 15-17.

                                   13
      In an appeal we decided in 2008, we applied the Lenz factors to

affirm the trial court’s decision restricting the residence of the custodial

parent’s children to Jefferson County and its contiguous counties.14 In

contrast to the circumstances with which we were presented in Melancon,

in this case Mother testified she intended to move to another state, and

the trial court lifted the restriction to allow her to move to a state that is

over two thousand miles away.

      Since the parties tried the issue to the court and because Father

didn’t request findings, we must imply all findings that are necessary to

support the judgment if they are supported by the record. 15 In a bench

trial, we must defer to the trial court’s judgment regarding the evaluation

it made as to the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence, as trial

courts are given discretion in their role as the factfinder to weigh the

evidence and to decide what witnesses to believe. 16 When as here the

abuse of discretion standard applies, the appellate court asks (1) whether

      14Getschel-Melancon v. Melancon, No. 09-07-396 CV, 2008 Tex. App.

LEXIS 7858, at *3-*6 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 16, 2008, no pet.).
     15Black v. Dallas Cty. Child Welfare Unit, 835 S.W.2d 626, 630 n.

10 (Tex. 1992).
     16See In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304, 317 (Tex. 2021); In re N.P.H.,

No. 09-15-00010-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10413, at *7 (Tex. App.—
Beaumont Sep. 22, 2016, no pet.).
                                   14
the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its

discretion; and (2) whether the trial court erred in applying its

discretion. 17

      After considering the evidence, we conclude for the following four

reasons the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting Mother the

exclusive right to establish Blake’s primary residence in Washington.

First, the record contains sufficient information upon which the trial

court could exercise a judgment about whether allowing Mother the right

to establish Blake’s primary residence in Washington served Blake’s best

interest. On the record the parties developed, the trial court could have

reasonably concluded that given Mother’s occupation, Mother had a more

extensive network in Washington that would provide her with the

support she needed to help her raise the child. And even though Blake

and four members of his family live in Beaumont, the trial court heard

testimony from which it could have reasonably concluded that given

Mother’s limited network of connections and lack of family in Jefferson

County and surrounding counties, those counties do not offer and likely

                        A.E.M.S., No. 09-07-410 CV, 2008 Tex. App.
      17In the Interest of

LEXIS 7572, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 9, 2008, no pet.).
                                15
will not offer Mother a comparable network of reliable caregivers who can

provide Mother the help she will need to care for Blake given the

demands of her schedule.

     In addition to the background already mentioned, the evidence

shows that Mother’s mother and father are both retired. According to

Mother, one is a doctor, the other a nurse, and both are available “24/7”

to help care for Blake. As an example of Mother extended family network,

over thirty children of Mother’s family and friends attended Blake’s first

birthday party, Mother explained, a group of children that offer Blake

opportunities for “play dates” with people from families that Mother

knows, which Mother can’t duplicate in Texas.

     Blake’s extended family is committed to help Blake too, Mother

added, as his maternal grandmother traveled from Washington so she

could testify if needed in the hearing. The maternal grandmother’s

testimony wasn’t presented after Mother’s attorney told the court that

the testimony of the additional witness after Mother and Father had

testified would simply reinforce Mother’s testimony.

     The trial court could have also reasonably concluded that Father’s

family wouldn’t be able to provide Mother with the same level of childcare

                                   16
that Mother could have if she lived in Washington. Mother testified that

except for Father, she has no family or friends in Beaumont who have

helped her care for Blake. Mother explained that Father’s parents had

not been able to help them due to their work schedules and that Father’s

mother was taking care of “an elderly aunt that is mentally disabled.”18

Consequently, Mother testified she put Blake in daycare so she could

work after she couldn’t find another reliable nanny when the first nanny

that she hired quit after she found another job.

     Mother told the court that Father had not shown he could care for

Blake when he was sick during the week, as she explained that Father’s

work schedule prohibited him from watching Blake on short notice.

Mother also testified that Father was given every opportunity to have a

relationship with Blake after Blake was born, but he had chosen to play

video games or had gone to his parents’ home and refused counseling

rather than working toward working to foster his relationships with

them.

     18Father did not testify about a disabled aunt who lived in Jefferson

County.
                                   17
     Second, the record allowed the trial court to find that by moving to

Washington, Mother believed she could earn a higher income than she

could earn in Beaumont, which she thought would also benefit Blake. For

instance, Mother testified that opportunities to work as physician’s

assistants are rare in Beaumont. And although Mother did find a job she

took in Beaumont, the job came with no benefits, no health insurance,

and no allowances for continuing medical education or licensing fees.

Mother further testified that since she is paid on an hourly basis, she

doesn’t earn anything when she takes off work and stays home with

Blake. According to Mother, there are many opportunities to work as a

physician’s assistant in Seattle, jobs that offer benefits and better

opportunities to advance than she has available to her here.

     Third, Father testified the reason he doesn’t want Blake’s primary

residence to be in Washington is that he wants “to get as much time with

[Blake] as possible.” But the record allowed the trial court to believe that

Father’s opposition to Blake’s living in Washington was more about

Father’s convenience and the increased expenses he would face in seeing

his son than it had to do with whether it would serve Blake’s best interest

                                    18
to live in a place where an extended family network was available to care

for him given Mother’s career.

     For instance, the trial court heard evidence from which it could

have reasonably concluded that Father lived with Mother and Blake, he

spent more time playing video games than he spent with Blake. Father

even testified he didn’t want Blake’s primary residence to be in Houston

because it would be “quite a bit of drive for me.”

     The evidence the trial court heard allowed the trial court to

reasonably conclude that Father could maintain a close relationship with

Blake despite the distance between Beaumont and Seattle, which is

where Mother said she planned to move. Mother expressed a desire to

encourage Blake’s relationship with his father. For example, she testified

that if allowed to move, she would do her part to ensure that Blake

maintained a full and continuous relationship with Father. For instance,

Mother testified she would accompany Blake on flights to and from

Houston so that he could see his Father in Texas once a month at her

expense. The trial court’s order requires Mother to fly with Blake to

Houston once a month at her expense to allow him to exercise his rights

of visitation with Blake.

                                   19
     Finally, no testimony in the record shows Father has developed a

close relationship with Blake which will adversely impact him if he is

moved. There is no testimony that Blake has any special needs or that

Blake has met or has a relationship with Father’s other child. And we

note the Order provides that the trial court may modify the order should

the circumstances of the child or a person affected by the Order

materially and substantially change. So if there is a material change in

circumstances, Father may return to court and ask the trial court to

modify the Order and place a narrower geographic limit on Mother’s

rights.

     To be fair, we don’t question Father’s conclusion that the record

shows it will be more difficult for him and for his family to develop and

maintain a close relationship with Blake given the distances involved

between Beaumont and Seattle, Washington. That said, the trial court

addressed the burden Mother is creating by moving to another state by

shifting some of those costs to Mother, requiring her to fly with Blake and

pay for the expenses associated with the round-trip flights to Houston

required so that Blake may see his Father at least once a month.

                                    20
     We also assume that the trial court, having heard testimony

addressing the relatively short length of the parties romantic

involvement and the conflicting testimony about what the parties

discussed they would agree to if things between them didn’t work out,

decided that Washington would serve Blake’s needs best given Mother’s

career, her opportunities to maximize her income, and her need to have

reliable childcare provided by an extended network available to her from

her family and friends. Under the circumstances, we conclude the trial

court had sufficient information on which to exercise its discretion.19 We

hold that Father has not demonstrated that an abuse of discretion

occurred when the trial court decided that expanding the geographical

restriction to include Washington was in Blake’s best interest under the

circumstances of the parties to this case.

     We overrule Father’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s Order.

     AFFIRMED.
                                             _________________________
                                                  HOLLIS HORTON
                                                       Justice

Submitted on March 7, 2023
Opinion Delivered July 27, 2023
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

     19Melancon, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7858, at *6.

                                   21