Kelly Stone v. Hayden Stone

San Marcos, Texas family law lawyers represented the parties in a dissolution of marriage case. (Divorce)



Kelly Stone appeals the trial court's modification of custody of her two children. Under the final divorce decree, Kelly and the children's father, appellee Hayden Stone, were appointed joint managing conservators.[1] Kelly was appointed the joint managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence within Hays County, Texas, and any counties contiguous to it. Hayden was granted possession and access under the standard possession order. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 153.111-.317.



After Kelly was accepted to a PhD program in Portugal, she filed a motion for enforcement and modification, seeking to enforce the passport provision in the decree and to remove the geographic restriction. Hayden filed a counterpetition seeking to be named sole managing conservator; in the alternative, seeking to be appointed the joint managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence; and under either type of

conservatorship, seeking to have Kelly's possession and access supervised. After a hearing and after the trial court met with the children, who were ages 14 and 16 at the time, the trial court signed an order naming the parties joint managing conservators and awarding Hayden the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence within Hays County; all counties contiguous to Hays County; and Nixon, Texas.



The order makes no provision for Kelly to have any scheduled possession and access to the children. Instead, the trial court left the time for possession and access to be agreed by the parties, and it prohibited Kelly and Hayden from filing contempt charges against each other for failing to follow "the Court-ordered possession order, if the children do not wish to spend time with the other parent for a period of possession."



* * *



Legal issue Can a trial court impose a severe restriction on a joint managing conservator's possession and access rights without specifying a schedule, and without good cause, if it is not necessary to protect the best interest of the children?

Headnote



FAMILY LAW. CHILD CUSTODY MODIFICATION. The case examines whether a trial court abused its discretion by imposing a vague possession and access order in a child custody modification, which lacked specific schedules and made it unenforceable by contempt, thereby improperly restricting a joint managing conservator's access to her children.



FAMILY LAW. ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTODY ORDERS. The court determined whether the trial court erred by issuing a custody order that could not be enforced by contempt, lacking the specificity required to protect the children's best interest and facilitate enforcement of possession and access.

Key Phrases Joint managing conservators. Child's best interest. Geographic restriction. Possession and access. PhD program in Portugal.

Reversed