In re V.J.A.O.

3 Citing cases

  1. Heady v. Heady

    No. 04-22-00227-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 31, 2024)

    ; In re V.J.A.O., No. 05-15-01534-CV, 2017 WL 930025, at *7 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 9, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it rendered a standard possession order rather than the 50/50, week-on/week-off arrangement requested by appellant). Here, we conclude Kevin's general request for an undefined "50/50 access schedule" did not contain the specificity required to inform the trial court that he was making an election for an extended standard possession order with alternative beginning and ending possession times under section 153.317 because a standard possession order, extended standard possession order, and 50/50 possession order are three distinct schedules of possession.

  2. Klages v. Klages

    NO. 03-20-00086-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 25, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    These factors-the needs of the child, the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child, and the amount of time of possession of and access to a child-are set forth in the Family Code as relevant considerations when a trial court is determining whether the amount of child support set forth by the guidelines should be increased or decreased. See Tex. Fam. Code § 154.123(b)(1), (2), (4); In re V.J.A.O., No. 05-15-01534-CV, 2017 Tex.App. LEXIS 2049, at *19-20 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 9, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (rejecting father's contention that trial court abused its discretion by awarding additional child support because father's monthly resources greatly exceeded mother's and because mother's "primary possession of child means she is already absorbing more of the daily costs associated with feeding, sheltering, and raising the child"); In re H.O., No. 04-14-00263-CV, 2015 Tex.App. LEXIS 5113, at *7 (Tex. App.-San Antonio May 20, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing subsection 154.123(b)(4) and noting that "the trial court set current child support above the amount specified under the child support guidelines because [mother] has possession of the child one hundred percent of the time and [father] has no contact with the child"). Moreover, this list of statutory factors is not exhaustive, and the trial court must consider all relevant factors.

  3. In re Interest of D.B.

    No. 07-16-00359-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 11, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    And, whether to so order and the amount ordered, if any, is a decision that lies within the trial court's discretion. See In re V.J.A.O., No. 05-15-01534-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2049, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 9, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.). We next observe that the legislature thought to enact child support guidelines, and declared that child support set per those guidelines is presumptively reasonable.