In re S.B.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 05-20-00338-CV |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF S.B., A CHILD |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court Collin County Texas Trial Court Cause No. 468-51319-2019
Before Justices Pedersen, III, Goldstein, and Smith
In this appeal after a non-jury trial, appellant ("Father") challenges two trial court orders, one modifying possession and child support and the other enforcing a modification order. Father brings thirteen issues. We modify and affirm both orders.
Father and Mother married and had one child, S.B.[1] They divorced in 2014. Their divorce decree was modified in 2018. Subsequently, Mother filed an enforcement action and a modification action, both of which are appealed here.
In the trial below, Mother testified that Father's treatment of S.B. worsened every day after the previous order, on several occasions causing S.B. to return from Father crying and telling how he had treated her. S.B. sometimes cries before visiting Father and asks not to visit him. S.B. has cried after speaking with Father on the telephone. S.B. takes several days to recover from her depressed state after interacting with him.
S.B has a condition related to A.D.H.D. and to Tourette Syndrome. S.B. was diagnosed after the 2018 order and has required prescription medicine. When S.B. experiences increased stress, her condition worsens. Father's conduct increased S.B.'s stress. Mother testified S.B. must have constant access to her prescription medication to avoid increased symptoms, but Father failed to consistently make it available. S.B. told her therapist that she was not receiving medication during summer visitation with Father. When Father's conduct concerning medication was negative, S.B would get so nervous that her symptoms would markedly worsen. S.B. experienced significant turmoil related to her medication and access to it. S.B.'s symptoms typically were exacerbated by stress, which caused S.B. to cry at her therapist's office. S.B.'s friends noticed her condition, making S.B. uncomfortable. S.B. was very upset and did not understand the upsetting events concerning her medication. S.B. told her therapist that Father did not believe S.B. has a legitimately diagnosed medical condition or needs medication. Meanwhile, Mother is incurring increased expenses related to S.B.'s emotional and medical conditions.
Mother testified that Father caused S.B. considerable public anxiety at her school by alerting school officials that S.B. possessed a telephone and prescription medication. During these episodes, Father recorded the incident, which apparently involved teachers and other students, spoke loudly, caused S.B. to be embarrassed or anxious, and failed to comfort S.B. He testified others had provided comfort to S.B. during one such incident, and his providing comfort to S.B. at that time "was not on my to do list."
Mother testified that Father interfered with S.B.'s communication with her during his summer possession. He discarded or disassembled S.B.'s telephone and accompanying SIM card Mother had provided to S.B. Father disassembled the phone in S.B.'s presence, which caused her to cry. crying and asking him not to do it." Mother testified S.B. witnessed Father's banging on her car at a police station and screaming and yelling. Police had Father leave the police department before Mother and S.B left.
Mother testified that when Father communicates with S.B.'s doctors, teachers, and coaches, he provides false information. S.B.'s neurologist's office was so upset with Father that the office considered stopping treatment of S.B. Father provided false information to S.B.'s school, which caused postponement of a meeting to address S.B.'s accommodations. The meeting was delayed until lawyers intervened.
S.B.'s therapist, Tricia Phelps, testified that after the 2018 order, S.B. began therapy with her every week for more than a year. Phelps testified S.B. will do things either detrimental to herself or inconsistent with her own desires to please Father. She testified that Father has difficulty making good judgment calls about what is developmentally appropriate for S.B. Phelps noted Father is much more likely to criticize than praise, which is not healthy for S.B.'s development. Phelps noted S.B. was devastated, angered, hurt, and confused when Father told her that a special dress for a choir concert was too big and did not look good on her. S.B. could not understand why he was negative about the dress. Mother testified S.B. needs her therapist as a person S.B. can trust and with whom S.B. can talk without being punished. She testified Father told S.B. "bad things" about her therapist, which was "not beneficial for [S.B.].
Phelps testified that Father asked for her latest drug test results. Father also asked her for any board complaints and any other complaints filed against her. Father asked her to produce the information within four days. Phelps suggested Father thinks it might be better if she stopped counseling S.B. at least until matters were cleared up. She took Father's demands as threats to her livelihood and her license and said Father's communications felt as if they were designed only to somehow shape or inhibit her testimony.
The trial court held a non-jury trial in a consolidated proceeding on the modification and enforcement suits. The trial court signed modification and enforcement orders. The modification order appointed Mother and Father joint managing conservators of S.B. Mother was given the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of S.B. The modification order limited Father's possession to the first Saturday of each month, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Saturday and ending at noon the following Sunday, to be continuously exercised within Collin County, Texas, and its contiguous counties.[2] The modification order provided if Father met specified conditions, then he would possess S.B. under the standard possession order. The modification order provided that Father not interfere in specific respects with S.B.'s attendance and participation in her activities. The trial court ordered Father to pay $1,400.00 per month child support. The trial court ordered Mother to provide health insurance for S.B. and Father to pay Mother cash medical support for reimbursement of health insurance premiums as additional child support. As for unreimbursed health care costs, the trial court ordered Mother to open a health savings account for S.B. and Father to deposit $450.00 into the account each month. Mother and Father each were ordered to pay fifty percent of unreimbursed health expenses of S.B. above the first $450.00 deposited monthly by Father. The modification order enjoined Father from engaging in specified conduct related to S.B. The trial court awarded Mother $21,862.75 in attorney's fees, expenses, and costs associated with the modification suit.
The enforcement order included an order that Father pay Mother $4,656.70 for unpaid, unreimbursed medical child support. The trial court found Father had failed to comply with the 2018 order by failing to return S.B. to Mother on time after extended summer possession, resulting in Mother's incurring change fees for new airplane flights; destroying or discarding a telephone intended for S.B.'s use; and refusing delivery of a telephone for S.B.'s use, for which the trial court ordered Father to pay $1,120.00. The trial court also found Father violated the 2018 order by interfering with S.B.'s communication with Mother while S.B. was on summer visitation with Father, or his family in Ukraine, and for directly communicating with Mother. The trial court ordered Father to pay $18,568.75 in attorney's fees related to the enforcement order. The trial court ordered Father confined for a period not to exceed 180 days or until he complied with orders to pay Mother and her attorneys. The trial court suspended commitment and placed Father on community supervision for four years, conditioned on his paying Mother and her attorneys and on his complying with the order in the suit to modify.
Father appeals the modification and enforcement orders.
We understand Father's issues to be: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support modification of possession; (2) limitation of conservatorship rights was an abuse of the trial court's discretion and not supported by sufficient evidence; (3) deviation from the standard possession order was not supported by sufficient evidence; (4) the possession order was vague, ambiguous, and unenforceable; (5) the trial court abused its discretion, and there was insufficient evidence to support the medical support order; (6) the trial court abused its discretion, and there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial