In re H.T.S.

• Docket Number: 06-23-00029-CV
• Decision Date: 11 September 2023
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF H.T.S. AND T.A.S., CHILDREN
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

1

IN THE INTEREST OF H.T.S. AND T.A.S., CHILDREN

No. 06-23-00029-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

September 11, 2023

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 17-1215-F

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

2

ORDER

Mark Thomas Salih appeals the trial court's order modifying the parent-child relationship. Among other things, Salih complains of the lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law despite his timely request and notice of past due filings. Because the Texas Family Code requires the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law in this case, we abate this appeal.

The trial court's order appointed Salih as a joint managing conservator of H.T.S. and T.A.S. "[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that [a] standard possession order . . . (1) provides reasonable minimum possession of a child for a parent named as a possessory conservator or joint managing conservator; and (2) is in the best interest of the child." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.252. Accordingly, where "possession of a child by a parent is contested and the possession of the child varies from the standard possession order . . ., on request by a party, the court shall state in writing the specific reasons for the variance from the standard order." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.258(a) (Supp.). Moreover, "the rights and duties of a parent appointed as a conservator" may be limited "if the court makes a written finding that the limitation is in the best interest of the child." Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.072.

"When a party makes a proper and timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and the trial court fails to comply, harm is presumed unless the record affirmatively shows that the complaining party suffered no injury." Nguyen v. Pham, 640 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, pet. denied); see Tenery v. Tenery, 932 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tex. 1996) (per curiam). Error is harmful if it prevents an appellant from properly presenting a case to the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(A)(2).

3

Having reviewed this record, we conclude (1) that Salih's request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and his notice of past due findings and conclusions were timely filed, (2) that the face of the record does not negate the presumed harm from the lack of such findings and conclusions, and (3) that it appears such findings and conclusions are necessary for proper...