Opinion
05-22-00333-CV
02-02-2024
IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND K.C., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-16417-Z
Before Molberg, Reichek, and Smith, Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CRAIG SMITH, JUSTICE.
Appellant Father appeals from the trial court's final order in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship in which the trial court increased Father's child support from $7,250 per month to $12,000 per month. In one issue, Father contends Mother failed to present factually sufficient evidence of the children's increased financial needs and, therefore, the trial court erred in ordering the increased amount. Because we conclude that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the increased amount, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Writing this opinion presents an unusual problem because the briefs and appellate record are under a sealing order that we must respect. Kartsotis v. Bloch, 503 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2016, pet. denied). However, we also must hand down a public opinion explaining our decisions based on the record. See Tex. Rs. App. P. 47.1, 47.3. Accordingly, we have made every effort to preserve the confidentiality of the information, have avoided references to as much information as possible, and have made some references deliberately vague to avoid disclosing confidential details. See MasterGuard, L.P. v. Eco Techs. Int'l LLC, 441 S.W.3d 367, 371 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013, no pet.).
Father and Mother married and had two children. In 2016 they divorced, and Father was ordered to pay $7,250 in child support per month. The trial court entered a modification order in 2018, after the parties filed competing modification suits. Later in 2018, the parties again filed competing modification suits. Father sought increased possession time and decreased child support. Mother sought the opposite, decreased visitation and increased child support in the amount of $20,000 per month.
The case proceeded to a bench trial. In a memorandum ruling, the trial court initially granted Father's request for extended possession and granted Mother's request for an increase in child support payments. The trial court ordered Father to pay $12,000 per month in child support. The parties filed competing motions for reconsideration and, after a hearing, the trial court granted Mother's motion to reconsider and reduced Father's possession time as agreed by the parties. The trial court denied Father's motion and entered a final order setting Father's child support at $12,000 per month. This appeal followed.
Child Support Increase
In his sole issue, Father argues that the trial court erred by increasing his child support obligation under section 154.126 of the Texas Family Code because Mother failed to provide factually sufficient evidence to show that the children's financial needs increased. Father does not challenge the trial court's order decreasing his amount of possession time.
The Texas Family Code provides a statutory guideline to courts in setting the amount of child support due based on the monthly net resources of the obligor and the number of children to be supported. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 154.125. When the obligor's net resources exceed the amount to which the statutory guidelines apply, which is undisputed here, "the court may order additional amounts of child support as appropriate, depending on the income of the parties and the proven needs of the child." Id. § 154.126(a). The obligor cannot be ordered to pay more in child support than 100 percent of the proven needs of the child. Id. § 154.126(b).
The legislature has not defined what constitutes "the proven needs of the child"; however, the supreme court has explained that the needs of the child include "more than the bare necessities of life." Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 860 S.W.2d 414, 417 n.3 (Tex. 1993) (interpreting former, similarly worded child-support statute). As with all family law cases, the "paramount guiding principle" is the best interest of the child. Id.
We review a trial court's child support order under an abuse of discretion standard. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, unreasonably, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). "The mere fact that a trial judge may decide a matter within his discretionary authority in a different manner than an appellate judge in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate that an abuse of discretion has occurred." Id. at 242.
Challenges to the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence are not independent grounds of review but are relevant factors in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re A.B.P., 291 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). Thus, we look to (1) whether the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion and (2) whether it erred in exercising its discretion. Id. Under the first inquiry, we conduct the applicable sufficiency review. Id. "There is no abuse of discretion so long as some evidence of a substantive and probative character supports the trial court's decision." In re M.M.S., 256 S.W.3d 470, 476 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).
In reviewing the evidence to determine whether it is factually sufficient, we "must consider and weigh all the evidence, and should set aside the [finding] only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust." Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam). The amount of evidence needed to affirm a judgment is far less than the amount necessary to reverse one. Harris Cnty. v. Coats, 607 S.W.3d 359, 381 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.).
At trial in July 2021, Mother testified that the original amount of child support was set in 2012 and that the children were now much older, fifteen and twelve. She did not receive any other income than the child support she received from Father; however, her new husband contributed when he could.
Mother provided a written summary of the children's monthly expenses to meet their needs. The summary contained a list of categories of expenses (housing, extracurricular, car, electronics, home expenses, pet, medications, grooming, special events, dining, and school expenses beyond tuition) totaling over $19,000. If it was a shared expense by Mother and the children, Mother segregated her one-third from the total, leaving the remaining two-thirds to represent the children's portion. Items attributed entirely to the children were not reduced.
Mother testified that the housing costs were necessary in order for the children to have a safe and comfortable living environment. She believed it was necessary for the children to have cell phones for their safety and so that she could pick them up from various activities. Mother explained that the social events category was for cash that she provided the girls when they were going out with their friends, the outings expense was for movies, bowling, charity events, and museums, and the travel category covered two big family trips a year as well as an educational trip with just Mother and the children. Mother believed it was in the best interest of the children to travel with her, as it was in the best interest of them to also travel with Father; the children loved to travel. Mother confirmed the remaining expenses listed in the summary were necessary for the children and testified that the total amount of segregated expenses was the amount that she spent on average to meet the needs of the children.
Father did not object to Mother's testimony, did not object to the admission of Mother's summary of monthly expenses for the children, and did not object to the admission of her supporting documents, such as statements, invoices, payments, receipts, and checks. Although Father was out of his allotted time to present his case by the time Mother testified, he did not seek more time to cross examine her. Therefore, her testimony was not controverted.
Father did offer excerpts of Mother's deposition testimony, which included questioning by Father's counsel as to what had changed regarding the need to double the amount of child support she received each month. Mother testified that the children spent a majority of their time in the house with her and her new husband and she needed to be helping her new husband with the mortgage and bills. Father did not offer any other testimony or competing evidence regarding the needs of the children, and he agreed that he continued to have the ability to pay for the proven needs of the children on a monthly basis.
On appeal, Father specifically challenges the amount needed for housing, special events, and activities. As to the housing amount, Father contends that the evidence was factually insufficient because Mother calculated it at two-thirds of the total amount, which did not account for Mother's new husband and his children. Father also argues that the amount for special events and activities included birthdays, Christmas, social events, and outings which are discretionary gifts, not proven needs of the children.
Mother testified that the needs of the children cost over $19,000 per month. The housing category totaled over $6,000 per month, which included the children's portion for the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and other household bills and maintenance. The special events and activities category totaled over $4,000 per month, the majority of which was designated as travel costs. There was no evidence controverting Mother's testimony regarding either of these categories of needs or their respective amounts. Furthermore, the trial court did not order Father to pay the full amount of expenses as testified to by Mother. Instead, the trial court ordered Father to pay over $7,000 less than the amount Mother believed was necessary.
Mother's testimony, summary of the children's expenses, and various statements and receipts were probative evidence of the needs of the children. As the managing conservator with whom the children spent a majority of their time, she was in the best position to explain their needs. See McCain v. McCain, 980 S.W.2d 800, 802 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). The trial court weighed that evidence and significantly reduced the amount before ordering Father to pay $12,000 per month. We cannot conclude that the amount was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. See Cain, 709 S.W.2d at 176. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by increasing Father's child support to $12,000 per month. We overrule Father's sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's April 1, 2022 final order in the 2018 modification suit.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's April 1, 2022 final order in the 2018 modification suit is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee Rebecca Lange recover her costs of this appeal from appellant James Dondero.