Rain Levy Minns Udall v. Michael Minns

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed a final SAPCR order appointing the children’s maternal grandfather as sole managing conservator. The court addressed the grandfather’s standing, the parental presumption and sufficiency of the evidence, possession and support provisions, attorney’s fees, counseling concerning the mother’s mental health, and alleged jurisdictional defects arising from Travis County’s central-docket system. The court held that the orders were not void for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the trial court.

Holdings

1. The orders were not void for lack of jurisdiction because Travis County's authorized central-docket system permits any district judge in the county to hear a case unless it has been specially assigned to a particular judge. A judge acting under that system acts for the court possessing continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
2. Grandfather had standing under Texas Family Code section 102.004(a)(1) because the evidence supported a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the children's circumstances when he filed suit would significantly impair their physical health or emotional development.
3. Grandfather rebutted the statutory presumption favoring appointment of a parent as managing conservator, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing him sole managing conservator.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by deviating from the standard possession order and allowing possession as agreed, or failing agreement, limited visitation subject to the children's ability to opt out and therapeutic or child-requested supervision.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Mother to pay $1,418 per month in child support and $591.53 per month for health, dental, and vision insurance.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Grandfather $515,253.07 in trial attorney's fees and conditional appellate attorney's fees.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the children to receive developmentally appropriate education and therapeutic support concerning Mother's mental-health issues, with the content dependent in part on whether additional testing confirmed an autism diagnosis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 53rd District Court's orders were void because the 200th District Court allegedly retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the children under Texas Family Code section 155.001.
2. Whether Grandfather had standing under Texas Family Code section 102.004(a)(1) to file an original SAPCR seeking managing conservatorship.
3. Whether Grandfather rebutted the statutory presumption favoring appointment of a parent as managing conservator.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by restricting Mother's possession and access.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Mother to pay child support and health-insurance costs.
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Grandfather trial and conditional appellate attorney's fees.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or violated Mother's rights under the ADA or HIPAA by ordering therapeutic education for the children concerning Mother's mental-health issues.

Disposition

affirmed