Texas Divorce Attorney Blog

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies When a Jury Verdict Controls a Child’s Primary Residence

Kelly McClure — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 10:15:44 +0000

When parents are going through a custody dispute, it can be difficult to understand what role the judge and jury play in the custody award. A question that arose in a recent Texas Supreme Court case was: if a jury decides that the children should primarily live with one parent, can a judge still give the other parent more time with the children? The court addressed the issue and clarified that a judge cannot use a possession schedule to effectively override the jury’s decision about which parent will have the children’s primary residence. Gopalan v. Marsh, No. 25-0161, slip op. at 12–13 (Tex. May 22, 2026).

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.

Article I, Section 37 of the Texas Constitution: How Texas’s New Constitutional Shield Limits Third-Party Interference in Family Law

Francesca Blackard — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 18:34:22 +0000

Texas courts have long recognized that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and upbringing of their children. Article I, Section 37 of the Texas Constitution formally places those parental rights into the Texas Constitution by affirming that parents have the responsibility to nurture and protect their children and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control over decisions concerning their children’s upbringing. Tex. Const. art. I, § 37.

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

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies That CPS Cannot Require a Parent to Divorce to Keep Parental Rights

Kelly McClure — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 18:32:07 +0000

A recent opinion from the Texas Supreme Court addresses an important limitation on the State’s authority in parental termination cases involving domestic violence. Although Texas law requires parents to protect their children from abusive environments, the Court reaffirmed that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) cannot require a parent to divorce an abusive spouse as a prerequisite to retaining parental rights. Rather, termination must rest on the statutory requirements established by the Texas Family Code and the evidence presented in the individual case. In re H.S., B.S., and M.S., Children, No. 24-0307 (Tex. June 5, 2026).

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.

Texas Court Reinforces That Post-Marital Agreements Will Be Enforced as Written

Francesca Blackard — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 15:56:26 +0000

A recent Texas appellate decision highlights the importance of carefully drafting post-marital agreements and understanding the obligations created by those agreements. In a recent divorce case, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals considered whether a trial court could modify contractual spousal maintenance provisions and how reimbursement claims should be handled when community funds are used to benefit separate property.

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

Recent Case Demonstrates Why Precise Premarital Agreement Language Matters for Business Owners in Texas

Kelly McClure — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 16:00:06 +0000

Texas law allows prospective spouses to alter many of the default rules governing marital property through a premarital agreement. When a valid agreement clearly defines how property will be characterized, courts generally enforce those terms rather than rewrite the parties’ bargain to achieve what might otherwise be viewed as a “just and right” result. Tex. Fam. Code §§ 4.001-4.010; Tex. Fam. Code § 7.001.

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

Texas Court Reaffirms the Fit Parent Presumption in Custody Disputes Involving Non-Legal Parents

Francesca Blackard — Sun, 02 Aug 2026 15:54:47 +0000

The legal recognition of same-sex marriage has expanded the ways families are formed, but it has not changed the legal requirements for establishing parentage under Texas law. When a child is born during a marriage, and only one spouse is recognized as the child’s legal parent, questions regarding conservatorship and possession can become especially complex if the marriage later ends.

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

Why Financial Tracing Matters More Than Family Testimony in Texas Divorce

Kelly McClure — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:47:31 +0000

High-net-worth divorces often involve inherited wealth, family gifts, investment accounts, and closely held business interests that one spouse believes should remain separate property. Under Texas law, however, having witnesses assert that an asset is separate property is not enough.

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).

Texas Appeals Court Confirms Statutory Bar on Joint Managing Conservatorship After Family Violence Findings

Francesca Blackard — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:47:56 +0000

Texas custody cases are often decided under the “best interest of the child” standard, which normally gives trial courts broad discretion to shape conservatorship arrangements. But that discretion is not unlimited. In cases involving family violence, the Texas Family Code places a direct restriction on what a court is allowed to order.

Under Texas Family Code § 153.004(b), a court may not appoint joint managing conservators when there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of family violence. The Austin Court of Appeals recently reinforced how strictly that rule applies in H. v. N., holding that once the statutory finding is made, a trial court cannot rely on rehabilitation, elapsed time, or improved behavior to justify joint custody. H. v. N. (Tex. App.—Austin, May 15, 2026).

Factual Background and Trial Court Proceedings

Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Required to Support Spousal Maintenance Award

Kelly McClure — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 17:55:55 +0000

A spouse seeking post-divorce maintenance in Texas must establish that they lack sufficient property to provide for minimum reasonable needs. While that requirement appears straightforward, disputes frequently arise regarding what evidence is necessary to satisfy the statutory standard. In Mehta v. Mehta, the Texas Supreme Court addressed that issue and clarified the type of evidence trial courts may consider when evaluating a request for spousal maintenance. Mehta v. Mehta, No. 23-0507 (Tex. June 20, 2025).

Background of the Case

Hannah and Manish Mehta were married for more than twenty years and had triplets during the marriage. The evidence presented at trial showed that Hannah largely stepped away from the workforce and became the children’s primary caregiver. One of the children suffered from significant medical conditions that required extensive supervision and daily care.

Texas Courts Can Enforce Divorce Settlement Agreements, But They Cannot Rewrite Them

Francesca Blackard — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:13:37 +0000

Texas law places significant value on the finality of property divisions in divorce. While courts retain authority to clarify and enforce the terms of a settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce decree, they generally lack authority to alter the parties’ substantive property rights after the decree becomes final. A recent opinion from the Waco Court of Appeals highlights how that distinction can shape post-divorce litigation involving disputed settlement language.

The Waco Court of Appeals Decision

In In re Marriage of Lannen, former spouses disputed the meaning of a right-of-first-refusal provision contained in their divorce settlement agreement and incorporated into the final decree. The former wife filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a judicial determination of the parties’ rights under the agreement. The former husband argued that the lawsuit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce decree.