OUTCOME: Attorney’s fee award set aside on appeal.
Former wife brought suit in Dallas County to enforce divorce decree provisions and to recover money judgment for amounts owed under parties' agreement for contractual alimony. The Dallas County trial j...udge granted former wife's motion for summary judgment and awarded judgment in her favor on the unpaid alimony and awarded her a judgment for attorneys fees. Former husband appealed. The Dallas Court of Appeals upheld the summary judgment as to the award of unpaid alimony, finding the evidence sufficient to support the award. However, the court of appeals reversed the attorney’s fee award because the evidence provided by former wife’s lawyer was in sufficient.
Child custody
In the Interest of M.K.S.-V.
N/A
OUTCOME: lesbian non-parent right to trial on custody
The Dallas Court of Appeals has given the green light to a nonparent woman to seek access to the child with whom she had a substantial relationship. In In re M.K.S., the Dallas Court of Appeals held t...hat the nonparent woman had established sufficient evidence of a pattern of conduct over a significant amount of time that the child would be involved with the nonparent woman, thus giving her the right under Texas Law to seek access to the child.
K.V. and T.S. had a same-sex relationship starting in December 1998. After several years of discussion and several sessions with a therapist, the two women decided to have a child through artificial insemination, with T.S. as the biological mother and sperm from an anonymous donor. The child was born May 21, 2004.
Then, 15 months after the child’s birth, K.V. and T.S. separated, agreeing at the time to a visitation schedule very similar to what is considered a “standard” visitation schedule between divorced parents in Texas: The child lived with T.S., but stayed with K.V. every other Tuesday overnight, every other weekend and every other Sunday from after church to 6 p.m. The women also agreed that K.V. would be allowed to share holiday time, as well. That arrangement lasted for about 20 months, when T.S. unilaterally refused to allow K.V. to see the child anymore.
K.V. immediately filed to establish a legal relationship with the child and for court-ordered access. She also volunteered to pay child support to T.S. on behalf of the child. T.S. challenged K.V.'s standing to file the lawsuit.
The Dallas Court of Appeals held:
"In the instant case, the record shows that the possession agreement between K.V. and T.S. shared characteristics of a standard possession order. From August 5, 2005 through April 25, 2007, during the school year, M.K.S. visited K.V. overnight once a week, alternative Sunday afternoons, and alternative weekends beginning on Friday afternoons. During the summer, the weekend visits sometimes started on Thursday afternoon. M.K.S. also visited K.V. on some holidays.
"M.K.S. had her own room at K.V.'s house where she kept her toys, movies, a television, and an aquarium. She had a sandbox and a slide set outside. K.V. also modified her house by building a wrap around deck with gates on it so that the child would have a safe environment in which to play. There were occasions when K.V. would pick the child up from school when she was sick and then purchase and administer medication. K.V. was listed as a parent on the child's school records. K.V. also attended school activities and the teachers were aware that K.V. would pick the child up from school during her periods of possession. Witnesses testified that T.S. has referred to K.V. as the child's mother and treats K.V. as one of the child's parents. K.V. also established a college fund for M.K.S. After the relationship between K.V. and T.S. ended, the couple continued to attend church with the child as a family unit. T.S. discontinued K.V.'s visits with M.K.S. on April 25, 2007. The original petition was filed on May 23, 2007.
"The record does not suggest this pattern of possession and caregiving was intended to be a temporary arrangement. To the contrary, the possession agreement and the parties' actions evinced an intent that the child occupy K.V.'s home consistently over a substantial period of time. Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred in determining that K.V. did not establish the six month period of actual care, custody, and control requisite to establish her standing to file an original SAPCR petition. K.V.'s first issue is sustained."
Divorce and separation
In re S.C.S.
N/A
OUTCOME: Writ of attachment for posession of child
Mother filed writ of attachment when Father failed to put child on airplane for Mother's summer visit. Court of appeals upheld Mother's right to attachment and immediate possession of the child.
Th...e court of appeals also denied Father's challenge to the award of attorneys fees to Mother, stating that the evidence provided by Mother's attorney's testimony was sufficient.
