Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Steven and Lisa Broomfield, who are not B.B.’s parents, appealed an order removing them as the child’s joint managing conservators and appointing B.B.’s mother as sole managing conservator. The prior conservatorship order had designated Mother as possessory conservator and restricted B.B.’s primary residence to Panola County or a contiguous county. Mother sought modification after the Broomfields moved B.B. to Smith County in violation of that restriction.
The trial court found that the Broomfields had committed thirty-six violations of court orders, including repeatedly denying Mother court-ordered access to B.B. They also pursued termination and adoption proceedings in Smith County, made allegations against Mother to child-protection authorities and her professional regulator, and posted disparaging material about the case on social media. Mother presented uncontroverted evidence that she had overcome her prior drug addiction, maintained stable employment and a home for three years, and could care for B.B. The court-appointed amicus attorney supported appointing Mother sole managing conservator. Although notified of the final hearing, the Broomfields did not testify.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected the Broomfields’ mandatory-transfer argument as moot because the court had already decided in an earlier original proceeding that Smith County was not the proper transferee county. That ruling rested on the Broomfields’ unjustifiable conduct in moving B.B. contrary to court orders.
The appellate court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by appointing Mother sole managing conservator. The Broomfields’ repeated violations and obstruction of Mother’s access amply supported a material and substantial change in circumstances. Uncontroverted testimony supported the implied finding that Mother was fit, leaving intact the presumption that a fit parent acts in the child’s best interest. Evidence of Mother’s stability, family support, and ability to meet B.B.’s needs, together with the Broomfields’ disregard of orders and interference with B.B.’s relationship with Mother, supported the best-interest determination.
Key Takeaways
- A prior appellate ruling that resolved a venue-transfer dispute can render the same issue moot in a later appeal.
- A nonparent conservator’s repeated violation of custody and visitation orders may constitute a material and substantial change supporting modification.
- Uncontroverted evidence of a parent’s rehabilitation and stability can support a finding of parental fitness and trigger the presumption that the fit parent acts in the child’s best interest.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference Texas appellate courts give trial judges in conservatorship matters when probative evidence supports their findings. It also confirms that courts may focus on a nonparent conservator’s post-order conduct—including obstruction of visitation, unauthorized relocation, and unwillingness to co-parent—when determining whether continued conservatorship serves a child’s best interests.
For nonparent conservators challenging a parent’s fitness, allegations alone are insufficient. When evidence of the parent’s rehabilitation and stability is uncontroverted, the constitutional presumption favoring a fit parent remains operative.