The Facts of In re K.N.

The case arose from a child-protection proceeding involving four children and repeated allegations of abuse concerning the oldest child. After the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services became involved, the parents were ordered to participate in services, and the trial court ultimately appointed the Department temporary managing conservator.

Separate Property and the Marital Home

Texas law generally classifies property owned by a spouse before marriage, as well as property acquired during marriage by gift or inheritance, as separate property. Property acquired during marriage is generally community property. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 3.001–.002.

The Potyondy Prenuptial Agreement

Brendan Potyondy and Meredith Potyondy met in Austin. At the time, Brendan worked in the oil and gas industry and had accumulated assets before the marriage, whereas Meredith did not. After numerous drafts, the parties signed a premarital agreement two days before their wedding. Meredith did not have her own attorney representing her in connection with the agreement. In re Marriage of Potyondy, No. 05-24-00312-CV.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose from the divorce of Prabhakar Gopalan and Andrea Marsh following their nine-year marriage. The parents agreed to joint managing conservatorship of their two children, but they disputed the allocation of parental rights, possession, and other issues concerning the children. After a five-day jury trial, the jury determined that Gopalan should have the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence within Travis County.

Although the amendment does not eliminate a family court’s authority to determine conservatorship, possession, or access issues, it provides additional constitutional protection when courts are asked to restrict a fit parent’s ability to make decisions for a child.

Texas’s Existing Protection of Parental Rights

Background of the Case

DFPS became involved with a family following repeated incidents of domestic violence between the parents. The record reflected that the father physically assaulted the mother on multiple occasions, including sexually touching her, threatening her with a firearm, damaging property during violent outbursts, and engaging in self-harming behavior in the presence of the children.

The court held that valid marital agreements must be enforced according to their terms, while also recognizing the financial consequences of the parties’ conduct after signing the agreement. Schuller v. Schuller, No. 14-24-00310-CV, 2025 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2025).

Background of the Case

A recent decision from the Third Court of Appeals illustrates why this principle is particularly important for high-net-worth business owners whose wealth is tied to closely held companies, corporate distributions, and evolving business interests. Henry Hutcherson III v. Tina Hutcherson, No. 03-24-00297-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 19, 2026).

The Content of the Premarital Agreement

A recent decision from the Fort Worth Court of Appeals illustrates how Texas courts continue to distinguish between a person who has acted as a parent and one who is legally recognized as a parent: In re M.S., No. 02-26-00016-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding).

The Dispute Centered on Parentage Rather Than Parenting

A recent decision from the Texas Third Court of Appeals demonstrates how that burden is applied in practice. In O’Connor v. O’Connor, the court examined whether testimony from multiple family members could establish that mineral interests acquired during the marriage were purchased with the husband’s separate property.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence did not satisfy Texas tracing requirements because the financial documentation left critical gaps. (O’Connor v. O’Connor, No. 03-23-00407-CV, 2025 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Austin July 30, 2025).