In Interest of A.M.W

30 Citing cases

  1. In re H.L.H.

    No. 12-20-00247-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 20, 2021)

    A trial court has broad discretion in modifying child support payments, but the trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily and unreasonably, without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985); In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.).

  2. In re Interest of A.R.W.

    No. 05-18-00201-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 26, 2019)   Cited 6 times

    Legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are relevant considerations in our abuse of discretion analysis. In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the order and indulge every presumption in the order's favor.

  3. In re C.A.C.

    No. 05-17-00602-CV (Tex. App. May. 9, 2018)

    The award of attorney's fees in the nature of child support is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Fees may be awarded as child support if the court finds that (i) the respondent failed to make child support payments, or (ii) the respondent failed to comply with the terms of an order providing for possession or access and enforcement of the order was necessary to ensure the child's physical or emotional health or welfare.

  4. In re Interest of J.A.H.

    No. 05-14-01330-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    We agree. Aimee, however, argues that we held that § 106.002 contains a prevailing party requirement in In re M.A.N.H., 231 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.), and In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). We disagree.

  5. In re M.G.N.

    491 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2016)   Cited 42 times
    Holding issues of dental decisions for children and dental costs were tried by consent based on evidence that jury heard testimony from parents regarding dental decisions, and at no point did anyone make no-pleadings objection

    Generally, a party waives any complaint regarding the failure to segregate fees if the complaining party fails to object during the testimony in support of attorney's fees. See In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Tex.App.–Dallas 2010, no pet) ; see also Green Int'l, Inc., 951 S.W.2d at 389. As previously noted, the trial court granted a new trial on the issue of attorney's fees.

  6. In re T.L.D.

    No. 05-12-01645-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 21, 2014)

    Under the abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency issues are not independent grounds of error but are relevant in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.); In re J.D.D., 242 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied).

  7. In re K.L.D.

    NO. 12-10-00386-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 13, 2012)   Cited 5 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in failing to require either parent to pay child support because they shared joint, equal possession

    It is within the trial court's discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a suit affecting the parent child relationship. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 106.002 (West 2008); Lenz, 79 S.W.3d at 21; In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 892 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). Q.C.'s requests to move to Dallas and increase child support were denied, making C.D. the prevailing party.

  8. Underwood, Wilson, Berry, Stein & Johnson, P.C. v. Sperrazza

    NO. 07-10-0435-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 12, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    See In re K.J.D., 299 S.W.3d at 518. See also In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2010, no pet.). B. Void versus Voidable

  9. Tucker v. Thomas

    405 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. App. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Holding the issues were not preserved for appeal

    , No. 2–07–259–CV, 2008 WL 3540251, at * 1 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 14, 2008, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“In a child support enforcement action, the trial court may assess attorney's fees as child support, but in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the trial court may assess attorney's fees as costs, not child support.”); In re AM.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.) (“In this case, the attorney's fees were awarded on a motion to modify, not on a motion to enforce delinquent child support obligations. Therefore, there is no basis in the facts or the law to characterize the award of attorney's fees as ‘in the nature of child support.

  10. In Interest of J.A.R.

    No. 12-11-00025-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 24, 2011)

    A trial court has broad discretion in setting or modifying child support payments. In re A.M.W., 313 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990).