Court Opinion

ID: 9381933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 09:09:02.995023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:35.841063
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                        TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                               No. 10-21-00299-CV

                IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
                    ANGELA NICOLE SMITH AND
                   CHRISTOPHER LEVI SMITH AND
                         IN THE INTEREST OF
                     S.A.S. AND C.L.S., CHILDREN

                         From the 82nd District Court
                             Falls County, Texas
                         Trial Court No. CV-40923-D

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Christopher Levi Smith appeals the trial court’s rulings regarding child custody,

child support, property division, and property characterization. We will affirm as

modified.

                        Factual and Procedural Background

      Angela and Christopher Smith were married in April of 2006 and separated after

fourteen years of marriage.    Angela filed for divorce in September of 2020, and
Christopher filed an answer and counter petition. During the marriage, the Smiths

acquired assets, including a marital residence, and became parents of two children, S.A.S.

and C.L.S. The Smiths entered into a Rule 11 agreement on temporary orders. After a

contested bench trial, the trial court granted the divorce and designated Angela and

Christopher as joint managing conservators of the children. The trial court gave Angela

the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence, the exclusive right to

receive child support payments, and the exclusive right to make decisions concerning the

children’s education.     The trial court gave Christopher possession of the children

pursuant to the standard possession order. See generally TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.312.

                                         Issue One

        In his first issue, Christopher challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence

supporting the trial court’s designation of Angela as the joint managing conservator with

the exclusive right to determine the children’s primary residence and granting

Christopher the rights of a possessory conservator under the standard possession order.

AUTHORITY

        The primary consideration in determining issues of conservatorship and

possession of and access to a child is the best interest of the child, and the trial court is

given great latitude in determining what is in a minor child’s best interest. TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 153.002; see Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). That broad

latitude applies also to the trial court’s designation of the parent responsible for

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                Page 2
determining the child’s primary residence and whether to specify a geographic

limitation. In re K.L.W., 301 S.W.3d 423, 428 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.); see also

Morris v. Veilleux, No. 03-20-00385-CV, 2021 WL 4341967, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept.

24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

        Findings regarding conservatorship and child support are governed by a

preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.005; see also In

re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616 (Tex. 2007).

        We use an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s ruling on

issues related to conservatorship. See In re J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2021), cert.

denied sub. nom. R.S.C. v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Svcs., ___ U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 1139

(2022). The abuse-of-discretion standard applies as well to what is in the best interest of

a child in relation to those matters. Id. The 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.’” Id. (quoting Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.

1990) (per curiam)).

        When applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, challenges to the legal and factual

sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of error but are factors used in

assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re J.J.R.S., 607 S.W.3d 400, 404

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2020), aff’d, 627 S.W.3d at 211; see also In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d

424, 427-28 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). We first ask whether the trial

court had sufficient evidence on which to exercise its discretion and second whether it

erred in applying its discretion. Echols v. Olivarez, 85 S.W.3d 475, 477 (Tex. App.—Austin

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                 Page 3
2002, no pet.). A trial court does not abuse its discretion when there is “some evidence of

a substantive and probative character to support the trial court's judgment.” J.J.R.S., 607

S.W.3d at 404 (quoting In re K.S., 492 S.W.3d 419, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2016, pet. denied)). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court’s

ruling and will uphold its judgment on any legal theory supported by the evidence.

Worford, 801 S.W.2d at 109; see also Rosemond v. Al-Lahiq, 331 S.W.3d 764, 766 (Tex. 2011).

        Conservatorship determinations are “intensely fact driven.” Lenz v. Lenz, 79

S.W.3d 10, 19 (Tex. 2002). The trial court, as the finder of fact in a bench trial, is in the

best position to determine the candor, demeanor, and credibility of the witnesses. In re

Marriage of Elabd, 589 S.W.3d 280, 288 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, no pet.). “[W]e defer to

the trial court’s resolution of underlying facts and to the credibility determinations that

may have affected its decision.” Id. An abuse of discretion generally does not occur when

a trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence. Id. It is within the fact finder’s

province to resolve such conflicts in the evidence. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802,

820 (Tex. 2005).

        The court presumes that appointment of parents as joint managing
        conservators is in the best interest of the child. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.131.
        . . . [T]he court must specify the rights and duties of conservatorship that
        each parent may exercise, and it is not required to award these rights
        equally or require that they be exercised jointly. See id. § 153.071; Stillwell v.
        Stillwell, No. 03-17-00457-CV, 2018 WL 5024022, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin
        Oct. 17, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). When parents are appointed joint
        managing conservators, the court must designate the parent “who has the
        exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the child,” either with
        or without geographic limitations. TEX. FAM. CODE § 153.134(b)(1).

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                      Page 4
Wright v. Berger, No. 01-18-00964-CV, 2020 WL 1917839, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] Apr. 21, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

        In determining the best interest of a child, the appellate courts have generally held

that the evidence should be evaluated using the non-exclusive factors enumerated in

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). See In re A.J.M., No. 10-14-00284-CV,

2016 WL 936869, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 10, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also In re

Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278, 282 n.20 (Tex. 2000) (recognizing that intermediate appellate courts

use Holley factors to ascertain best interest of child in conservatorship cases). These

factors include:

        the child's desires; the child's current and future physical and emotional
        needs; current and future emotional and physical danger to the child;
        parental abilities of the persons seeking custody; programs available to
        assist those persons seeking custody to promote the best interest of the
        child; plans for the child by the individuals or agency seeking custody;
        stability of the home or proposed placement; acts or omissions of the parent
        that may indicate the existing parent-child relationship is not appropriate;
        and any excuse for the parent's acts or omissions.

In re A.L.H., 515 S.W.3d 60, 79 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied) (citing

Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72). This list of factors is not exhaustive, and evidence is not

required on all the factors. In re D.R.A., 374 S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

DISCUSSION

        After entry of the decree of divorce, the trial court entered the following findings

of fact now challenged by Christopher in this issue:

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                Page 5
        5.     It is in the best interest of the children that [Angela] and
        [Christopher] be appointed joint managing conservators of the children and
        that [Angela] have the right to designate the children's primary residence
        within Falls, Robertson, Bell, Milam, McLennan, or Limestones [sic]
        counties in Texas, the exclusive right to receive child support payments,
        and the exclusive right to make decisions concerning the children's
        education.

        6.       The periods of possession comply with the Standard Possession

        Order.

The trial court entered Conclusions of Law applicable to this issue as follows:

        5.     [Angela] and [Christopher] should be named joint managing
        conservators of the children and that [Angela] have the right to designate
        the children's primary residence within Falls, Robertson, Bell, Milam,
        McLennan, or Limestones [sic] counties in Texas, the exclusive right to
        receive child support payments, and the exclusive right to make decisions
        concerning the children's education.

        6.     [Christopher] is entitled to periods of possession with [S.A.S.] and
        [C.L.S.] pursuant to the Standard Possession Order.

                                                 ...

        8.     The orders concerning the children in this care [sic] are in the best
        interest of the children.

        The record from the trial court reflects that S.A.S. informed the trial court that she

would “rather stay with mom.” S.A.S. explained that she wanted to live with her mom

because, “I like being with mom.” S.A.S. added, “I like going to work with mom and

working and helping her do a lot of things.” When asked by the trial court, S.A.S. agreed

that if she had her say she would prefer to live with her mother and visit her father on

weekends.
In re Marriage of Smith                                                                 Page 6
        Angela testified that, prior to she and Christopher’s separation, she was the parent

who stayed with the children when they were sick, took the children to doctor’s

appointments, helped S.A.S. with homework, prepared the meals, dealt with parenting

responsibilities in the evening, and put the children to bed in the evening. Angela also

testified that she believed it was in the best interest of the children for her to be appointed

the primary conservator and that the children should live with her. Angela accused

Christopher of being harsh in tone with the children and yelling at her in front of the

children. Angela accused Christopher of drinking too much around the children and also

accused Christopher of dragging S.A.S. into their marital dispute.

        Christopher testified that, prior to he and Angela’s separation, he was the parent

who picked up the children from school and daycare each day, spent more time with the

children than Angela, regularly took the children places, took the children to their

doctor’s appointments, stayed home with the children when they were sick if Angela had

to work, watched the children most weekends while Angela worked, always took the

children to their Tuesday evening programs at church, and did ninety percent of the

indoor cleaning around their house.

        Christopher’s mother, Suzanne, testified that she and her husband took the

children to the doctor on several occasions and that she has concerns about Angela’s

attention to their medical needs. Suzanne also expressed concerns about the children’s

diet and the availability of junk food in the home. Suzanne testified that Angela does not

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                  Page 7
keep the house well and that, “It's messy. It's dirty. Their rooms are unkept.” Suzanne

also believed that Angela has not taught the children to be responsible for their rooms or

personal grooming. Suzanne added, “The girls love Chris. And he plays with them. He

takes them places. He takes them to family functions.”

        Other evidence presented at trial included testimony from multiple witnesses that

Angela had a good loving relationship with the children, that the children were well

behaved, and that there were no concerns for the children while in Angela’s care.

        One witness testified that both Angela and Christopher are very good parents that

attend church as a family. The witness denied observing either Angela or Christopher

drinking alcohol to excess and said they treated each other fine.

        Another witness testified Christopher was a good father and that he never had any

concerns with Christopher’s treatment of the children. The witness also confirmed he

had never seen Christopher drink alcohol to excess.

        In the end, both parties produced evidence that they were good parents, and both

attacked the parenting skills of the other. Both parties introduced evidence that the other

parent abused alcohol or was intoxicated around the children, and both parties conceded

they drank alcoholic beverages. Angela introduced testimony that Christopher watched

pornography, and Christopher introduced testimony that Angela also watched

pornography.        Both parties sponsored witnesses that testified in support of their

contentions or refuted the other’s contentions.

In re Marriage of Smith                                                              Page 8
        Based on our review of the record under the appropriate standard for determining

the factual sufficiency of the evidence and considering the above evidence relevant to the

Holley factors, we conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to

exercise its discretion, that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the trial court’s

findings of fact set forth above, and that the findings are not against the great weight and

preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the findings of fact support the trial court's

conclusions of law set forth above.

        We overrule Christopher’s first issue.

                                          Issue Two

        In his second issue, Christopher contends that the trial court abused its discretion

by ordering him to pay child support. Specifically, Christopher asks this Court to reverse

the trial court’s order requiring him to pay child support and to remand the case to the

trial court with directions to reconsider the award of child support as it reconsiders

conservatorship and possession aspects of the decree.             Alternatively, Christopher

contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay child support

because the trial court’s findings regarding conservatorship and possession of the

children are contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

        Because we have decided that the trial court’s finding that Angela should be

designated the parent responsible for determining the children’s primary residence is not

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                  Page 9
contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, we overrule

Christopher’s second issue.

                                         Issue Three

        In his third issue, Christopher contends that the trial court abused its discretion by

awarding the marital home to Angela.

AUTHORITY

        Section 7.001 of the Family Code provides: “the court shall order a division of the

estate of the parties in a manner that the court deems just and right, having due regard

for the rights of each party and any children of the marriage.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

7.001. The trial court’s division of the community estate is subject to review for an abuse

of discretion. In re Marriage of Ramsey & Echols, 487 S.W.3d 762, 766 (Tex. App.—Waco

2016, pet. denied) (citing Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 698 (Tex. 1981)). The party

complaining of the division of the community estate has the burden of showing from the

evidence in the record that the trial court's division of the community estate was so unjust

and unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Id. The trial court in exercising its

broad discretion may consider many factors, including:

        the nature of the marital property, the relative earning capacity and
        business opportunities of the parties, the parties' relative financial condition
        and obligations, the parties' education, the size of the separate estates, the
        age, health, and physical conditions of the parties, fault in breaking up the
        marriage, the benefit the innocent spouse would have received had the
        marriage continued, and the probable need for future support.

Id.
In re Marriage of Smith                                                                    Page 10
DISCUSSION

        Christopher asks this court to reverse the trial court’s award of the marital home

to Angela and to remand the case to the trial court for reconsideration of the award of the

marital home to Angela as it reconsiders possession and access aspects of the decree.

Christopher specifically references finding of fact fifteen which provides:

        The Court took into consideration the following factors in making a
        determination of a just and right division of the marital estate . . . the value
        of the community estate, the separate estate of each party, any indebtedness
        owed by the community estate, the conduct of the parties during the
        marriage, the income and education and work experience of the parties, and
        the needs of the children the subject of this suit.

        The value of the community estate was approximately $750,000.00. The
        Court awarded 53% of the community estate to Petitioner and 47% of the
        community estate to Respondent.

        The Court confirmed certain items of separate property of both Petitioner
        and Respondent.

And conclusion of law nine which provides:

        The division of property in this case is just and right.

        In his argument, Christopher references evidence that he contracted and

supervised construction of the marital home and that he did ninety percent of the indoor

cleaning and all of the outside maintenance of the marital home. In addition, Christopher

directs us to evidence that Angela did not maintain the marital home or keep it clean.

Christopher’s argument is essentially that he built and maintained the marital home

therefore it should be awarded to him. Our review of the evidence reflects that the

In re Marriage of Smith                                                                    Page 11
children lived on the same property in a different residence before the Smiths moved into

the marital residence after it was built in 2019. S.A.S. was also in a public school in the

area.

        The trial court’s award of the marital home to Angela was clearly within the broad

discretion of the trial court and did not amount to a division of the community estate that

was so unjust and unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion. See In re Marriage of

Ramsey & Echols, 487 S.W.3d at 766.

        We overrule Christopher’s third issue.

                                        Issue Four

        In his fourth issue, Christopher contends that the trial court abused its discretion

by finding certain assets to be community property contrary to undisputed testimony.

        Angela concedes this issue in her brief. We will therefore sustain Christopher’s

fourth issue and modify the property division in the decree of divorce and set aside the

1985 Ford Mustang, 1996 Ford Truck, 10’ x 5’ utility trailer, wooden end-table, baseball

collection, comic book collection, and magazine collection, requested by Christopher in

his brief, as his separate property.

                                        Conclusion

        We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

In re Marriage of Smith                                                              Page 12
                                             MATT JOHNSON
                                             Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed as modified
Opinion delivered and filed March 22, 2023
[CV06]

In re Marriage of Smith                                     Page 13