In the Interest of K.H.W., a Child
Oct 09, 2018OUTCOME: BIG WIN FOR OUR CLIENT! After a full trial, the Court DENIED everything that Mother requested and ORDERED Mother pay Father's attorney's fees and expenses.
In this Child Custody Modification case, we represented the Father of a young child. The case arose from an "Agreed Final Decree of Divorce" which was entered by the Trial Court on June 13, 2017. In ... the Divorce Decree, Mother was granted the right to designate the "primary residence" of the child within Collin County, though this was further restricted by the additional agreed order that the child had to attend a certain municipal school district within Collin County co long as either Father or Mother resided in that school district. Also in the Agreed Decree possession was 50/50, based on a 2/2/5/5 schedule. However, within 8-9 months Mother became dissatisfied with the Agreed Decree and filed a Petition to Modify Parent-Child Relationship in which she claimed there had been "material and substantial changes in circumstances" of the parties or child which justified a modification. She asked the Court to: (1) put Father on a Standard Possession Order; (2) allow her to move with the child anywhere within Collin County and/or any county contiguous to Collin County (Grayson, Fannin, Hunt, Rockwall, Dallas and Denton); (3) allow her to enroll the child in any school district in that expanded several county basis; (4) require Father to use only State of Texas Licensed Day Care providers for child care (meaning he couldn't have the child's grandparents or aunt watch her after school); and (5) increase Father's child support. We defended Father focusing on showing the Court: (1) there was no "material and substantial change in circumstances", rather, Mother just didn't like the "deal" she made any more; (2) Mother was seeking to deprive Father of valuable time with his daughter out of spite; (3) Mother was seeking to prevent the child from continuing in the close family relationships with her aunt and grandparents by preventing them from providing child care, as well as trying to increase Father's costs for child care for no legitimate reason; (4) Mother was essentially trying to "flip primary" within one year, without complying with required procedures under the Texas Family Code; and (5) Mother's case was not compliant, it was without merit and frivolous, so that Father should be awarded his attorney's fees against Mother.
