From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re R.A.B.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
May 29, 2008
No. 09-07-253 CV (Tex. App. May. 29, 2008)

Opinion

No. 09-07-253 CV

Submitted on February 28, 2008.

Opinion Delivered May 29, 2008.

On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. F-176,338-E.

Before GAULTNEY, KREGER, and HORTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Milissa Ann Bock appeals pro se from a child support order. We affirm.

Pursuant to an agreed order signed by Bock (the sole managing conservator) and Anthony Durham (the child's father) on September 14, 2006, the associate judge ordered Durham to pay $530 per month in child support. On appeal, Bock contends she signed the child support order involuntarily and under duress because of a medical condition that impaired her judgment.

On September 19, 2006, five days after the associate justice signed the child support order, Bock filed a document seeking to appeal the order. The district judge held a hearing to determine whether the document was a timely-filed appeal directly from the associate judge to the family law district judge. At that hearing, Bock referenced her medical condition. The hearing, however, was limited to a determination of whether Bock had timely appealed to the referring court. The district court did not reach the merits of the "duress" issue, but instead determined Bock had not timely invoked the jurisdiction of the district court in her appeal from the associate judge's order.

A notice of appeal to the referring court had to be filed by September 18; the document filed by Bock on September 19 did not perfect an appeal to the district court. We nevertheless construed the September 19, 2006, document filed by Bock as a notice of appeal directly to this Court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.016 (Vernon Supp. 2007). In that document, Bock states she signed the agreed child support order under duress, but there is no indication in the record that the issue was presented to or considered by the associate judge. An appellate court may only consider the evidence that was before the trial court at the time of the trial court's ruling. See Garza v. Levin, 769 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1989, writ denied). The record does not show that Bock presented her claims to the associate judge or that he ever considered or ruled on them. Therefore, she did not preserve her complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); see generally Finley v. May, 154 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.). We overrule Bock's issues and affrim the trial court's judgment.

The applicable version of section 201.015(a) is the Act of April 6, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 20, § 1, sec. 201.015(a), 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 113, 241 (amended 2007).

There is no substantive difference between the applicable version of section 201.016(a) and the current version. See Act of April 6, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 20, § 1, sec. 201.016(a), 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 113, 241 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 201.016(a) (Vernon Supp. 2007).

This opinion does not preclude Bock from filing another motion to modify child support. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.401 (Vernon Supp. 2007).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

In re R.A.B.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont
May 29, 2008
No. 09-07-253 CV (Tex. App. May. 29, 2008)
Case details for

In re R.A.B.

Case Details

Full title:IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.B

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

Date published: May 29, 2008

Citations

No. 09-07-253 CV (Tex. App. May. 29, 2008)