Thomas Leslie Mace v. Jill Bowen Polk County Courthouse - Livingston, Texas

Thomas Leslie Mace appeals the modification of a protective order. On May

11, 2015, the trial court found that Mace and Jill Bowen had a dating relationship

and that family violence had occurred and was likely to occur in the future. The trial

court signed a protective order to remain in effect until May 11, 2017, prohibiting

Mace from communicating with Bowen in a threatening or harassing manner and

excluding Mace from Bowen’s residence. Bowen filed a motion to modify the

2

protective order to include Bowen’s child, A.M.B.1 A hearing was scheduled for

May 18, 2016, and Mace appeared at the hearing.

Bowen testified that after the protective order originally issued, Mace

assaulted her while she was pregnant. The child was an infant when the trial court

heard the motion to modify the protective order. According to Bowen, Mace was

warned the he was not allowed to write to her because of the protective order. Mace

then started writing letters to her under another inmate’s name. The officer assigned

to Bowen’s case visited Mace in jail and warned him to stop writing to Bowen. At

that point, Mace started writing letters to the child. The letters discussed the events

that transpired between Mace and Bowen, and Bowen stated they were actually

meant for her and not for an infant too young to read. Additionally, Mace sent Bowen

threatening text messages after the protective order issued. In one exchange of text

messages between Mace and Bowen, Bowen suggested that she would have a friend

come over to protect her and the baby, and Mace replied, “And he won’t help.” The

trial court modified the protective order to prohibit Mace from harassing or

physically threatening the child or going within 200 yards of the child or his

childcare facility. Mace filed a notice of appeal.

1 Bowen stated that Mace is the child’s father, but at the time of the hearing,

no paternity action had been filed.

3

Mace argues he was unprepared for a hearing and claims Bowen is not a

credible witness. Mace did not request a continuance and, accordingly, waived any

complaint that the trial court proceeded with the hearing. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

In a protective order hearing, the trial court is the trier of fact and the sole judge of

the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Boyd v.

Palmore, 425 S.W.3d 425, 431 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.).

Bowen presented evidence that Mace subverted the protective order through the

child, and Mace offered no evidence to challenge Bowen’s credibility in the

hearing.2 The trial court’s order modifying the protective order is affirmed.



* * *



2 Additionally, Mace argues he has a legitimate reason to contact the child

because his paternity was adjudicated in a separate case after the trial court modified

the protective order. That case was resolved in a separate appeal and is not at issue

here. See In re A.M.B., No. 09-16-0373-CV, 2017 WL 706498, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont Feb. 23, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

AFFIRMED.