Court Opinion

ID: 9376617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-03 10:08:38.15185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.859230
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-23-00017-CV

                          IN RE MICHAEL A. FARMER

                                Original Proceeding

                           From the 13th District Court
                             Navarro County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. 09-18394-CV

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In this suit to modify the parent-child relationship, relator, Michael A. Farmer, has

filed a petition for writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court abused its discretion

by reinstating the standard possession order and removing the requirement that Mother’s

access to the children be limited and supervised without providing notice or conducting

a hearing. We conditionally grant relator’s mandamus petition.
                                       Background

       On January 11, 2013, the trial court signed an Order in Suit to Modify the Parent-

Child Relationship (the “2013 Order”), which included orders for the parties’ three

children. Specifically, the 2013 Order awarded relator sole managing conservatorship of

the three children and entered a modified standard possession order for real party in

interest, Mother.

       On November 8, 2016, relator filed a Petition to Modify the Parent-Child

Relationship requesting that, among other things, the trial court require Mother’s periods

of possession be restricted and supervised. Mother responded by filing a Counterpetition

to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship seeking the right to designate the primary

residence of the children, as well as a modification of the terms and conditions for access

to or possession of the children.

       Thereafter, relator filed a motion for enforcement of the trial court’s child-support

order. On September 20, 2019, after a hearing, the trial court signed an order holding

Mother in contempt for failing to comply with the trial court’s child-support order. The

trial court ordered Mother to be committed to the county jail for 180 days, suspended

commitment to the county jail, placed Mother on probation for two years, and ordered

her to pay back child support and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by relator.

       Relator later learned that Mother had been arrested for allegedly injuring a child

in her household. On February 24, 2020, relator filed a Motion to Revoke Suspension of

In re Farmer                                                                          Page 2
Commitment and Order to Appear, wherein relator alleged that, among other things,

Mother had failed to pay back child support or her share of the medical expenses for the

children. Relator moved that Mother’s probation be revoked and that she be committed

to county jail in accordance with the trial court’s September 20, 2019 order.

       On October 1, 2020, relator filed a second Motion to Modify Temporary Orders

and Request for a Temporary Restraining Order based on Mother’s arrest shortly before

her scheduled period of possession. The same day, the trial court signed a temporary

restraining order and set the matter for a hearing on October 15, 2020.

       At the October 15, 2020 hearing, relator presented evidence regarding Mother’s

pending criminal charge, as well as the conditions at Mother’s home. Based on the

testimony presented at this hearing, the trial court ordered that Mother’s possession of

the children be supervised and limited to once a week for two hours at the Navarro

County Child Advocacy Center. The trial court’s ruling was memorialized in a letter

ruling dated November 2, 2020; however, for some reason, the trial court did not sign an

order memorializing the November 2, 2020 letter ruling until December 20, 2022.

       Nevertheless, on October 20, 2021, the trial court conducted a hearing on Mother’s

failure to comply with the trial court’s child-support orders. At this hearing, the parties

only addressed Mother’s failure to pay all ordered child support. Relator requested that

Mother’s probation be revoked and that she be committed to the Navarro County Jail.

He also requested reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

In re Farmer                                                                         Page 3
        On December 15, 2022, the trial court issued a letter ruling regarding Mother’s

failure to comply with her child-support obligations. In this letter ruling, the trial court

sentenced Mother to 180 days in the Navarro County Jail and allowed her to complete

her sentence within 365 days of the letter ruling or on a work release. She was also

ordered to pay child-support arrearages, her current child-support obligations, and

relator’s attorney’s fees. Importantly, the trial judge indicated that he had met with the

children and that based on the most recent meeting, “the Court lifts the order that the

children have supervised visitation at the Navarro County Child Advocacy Center.”

        After the trial court issued its December 15, 2022 letter ruling, Mother filed a

Motion for Emergency Hearing to Reinstate the Standard Possession Order Prior to

Christmas Break on December 19, 2022.1 Mother requested an emergency hearing and

that the trial court reinstate the standard possession order for her to exercise her

Christmas holiday possession. Without notice or a hearing, the trial court issued a letter

ruling on December 21, 2022, stating the following:

        There is no need for an emergency hearing. The Court intended in its
        December 15, 2022 ruling that the possession scheduled would revert back
        to the January 11, 2013 Order in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship.
        This memorandum ruling shall not be considered as an order or findings of
        fact and conclusions of law, but shall have the same effect as if orally
        pronounced in open court.

        1  In her Motion for Emergency Hearing to Reinstate the Standard Possession Order Prior to
Christmas Break, Mother indicated that Chapter 105 of the Texas Family Code applies. See generally TEX.
FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 105.001-.009. Indeed, she specifically mentioned that pursuant to section 105.004 of the
Texas Family Code, the trial court may give precedence to her request for a hearing on this motion. See id.
§ 105.004.

In re Farmer                                                                                        Page 4
       In response to the trial court’s December 21, 2022 letter ruling, relator filed this

petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its December

21, 2022 letter ruling and conduct an evidentiary hearing on Mother’s December 19, 2022

Motion for Emergency Hearing to Reinstate the Standard Possession Order Prior to

Christmas Break. We requested a response to relator’s mandamus petition from Mother

and Respondent. No response has been filed.

                                The Mandamus Standard

       To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must generally show both that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In

re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court

clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to

amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to analyze the law

correctly or apply the law correctly to the facts. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164

S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We review the trial court’s

application of the law de novo. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).

       Because a trial court’s temporary orders are not appealable, mandamus is an

appropriate vehicle for review. See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334-35 (Tex. 2007) (orig.

proceeding); In re Strickland, 358 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, orig.

proceeding); In re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003,

orig. proceeding).

In re Farmer                                                                          Page 5
                                         Analysis

       In a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the trial court may make a

temporary order for the safety and welfare of the child, including an order modifying a

prior temporary order. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(a). Specifically, section 105.001(a)

of the Texas Family Code provides that, in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship,

a trial court may make a temporary order for the child’s safety and welfare, including an

order (1) for the temporary conservatorship of the child, (2) for the temporary support of

the child, (3) to restrain a party from disturbing the peace of the child or another party,

(4) to prohibit a person from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified

by the court, or (5) for payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. Id. Other

than an emergency order sought by a governmental entity, an order may not be rendered

under section 105.001(a)(1), (2), or (5) except after notice and a hearing. Id. § 105.001(b),

(h); see In re L.A.-K., 596 S.W.3d 387, 396 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2020, no pet.) (concluding

that Chapter 105, rather than Chapter 156, of the Texas Family Code applies to a challenge

to temporary orders denying a Father access to and possession of the child without giving

him notice and an opportunity to be heard); In re Chester, 357 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2011, orig. proceeding) (noting that a parent is entitled to notice and an

adversary hearing before entry of a temporary order modifying custody); In re K.L.R., 162

S.W.3d 291, 301 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, no pet.).

In re Farmer                                                                           Page 6
        Here, the trial court’s December 21, 2022 letter ruling is an order modifying a prior

temporary order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(a). Therefore, relator was entitled

to a notice and an adversary hearing before entry of a new temporary order modifying

the custody of the children in this case. See id. § 105.001(a)-(b), (h); see also In re Chester,

357 S.W.3d at 107; In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d 729, 730 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, orig.

proceeding); In re K.L.R., 162 S.W.3d at 301. The mandamus record before us shows that

the trial court did not provide notice that the existing temporary orders would be

modified or conduct a hearing on Mother’s Motion for Emergency Hearing to Reinstate

the Standard Possession Order Prior to Christmas Break before granting the relief request

by Mother.2 As such, relator was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence

regarding the safety and welfare of the child and to rebut Mother’s request to reinstate

the standard possession order. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its

discretion by failing to provide the parties with notice and a hearing on Mother’s request

to reinstate the standard possession order before modifying the existing temporary

orders. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.001(a), (b), (h); see also In re Chester, 357 S.W.3d at

107; In re Herring, 221 S.W.3d at 740; In re K.L.R., 162 S.W.3d at 301. We sustain relator’s

sole issue in his mandamus petition.

        2  And to the extent that the trial court mentioned in its December 21, 2022 letter ruling that the
intent of the prior December 15, 2022 was to revert the possession schedule to the schedule outlined in the
2013 Order, we note that the December 15, 2022 letter ruling appears to be the result of the October 20, 2021
hearing where only child support, not the visitation schedule, was litigated. If this is somehow incorrect,
both real party in interest and the respondent were given the opportunity to respond to relator’s mandamus
petition, and neither did so.

In re Farmer                                                                                          Page 7
                                       Conclusion

       Based on the foregoing, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ

mandamus. The trial court is ordered to withdraw the December 21, 2022 letter ruling

modifying the existing temporary orders. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails

to comply within fourteen days.

                                                STEVE SMITH
                                                Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson,
       and Justice Smith
Conditionally granted
Opinion delivered and filed March 1, 2023
[OT06]

In re Farmer                                                                        Page 8