Second Court of Appeals | Case Summaries

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued – Week of October 8, 2007

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions can be accessed by clicking the cause number then clicking View HTML Version of Opinion.

In re N.L.G., No. 02-06-00347-CV (Oct. 11, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Cayce, C.J.; and Livingston, J.).: Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing foster parents to intervene in State-initiated termination proceedings of the biological parentsi rights. The foster parents had possession of the eighteen-month-old child for the childis entire life and intended to adopt the child if parental rights were terminated. Therefore, the parents had two options for being heard by the trial court. First, because they had possession of the child for at least twelve months ninety days before the proceedings, they could have brought an original proceeding under section 102.003(a)(12) of the family code. Second, because they were the only family the child had ever known, they were able to meet the standing requirement for intervenors in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship under section 102.004 of the family code, which is the substantial past contact test.
Basil Schaban-Maurer v. Anna Maurer-Schaban, No. 02-06-00368-CV (Oct. 11, 2007) (Walker, J., joined by Livingston and McCoy, JJ.).: Held: The trial court did not err by making a disproportionate award of the community estate to the wife, issuing a protective order against the husband, and ordering the husband to pay $700 per month in child support. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court noted that the disproportionate award was based on the husbandis lack of financial contribution to the community estate, fraud on the community estate, and fault in the breakup of the marriage, among other factors, all of which are permissible factors for a trial court to consider in distribution of community property. Furthermore, under the sufficiency of evidence standard of review, the trial court did not err by issuing a protective order against the husband based solely on a history of family violence without any testimony as to the likelihood of future family violence. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the husband was intentionally underemployed for the purpose of setting monthly child support payments when the husband was not currently earning any income and where the court heard testimony that the husband had earned $40,000 annually when he was employed.