Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens, 06-25-00069-CV, February 11, 2026.
On appeal from the County Court at Law, Hopkins County, Texas
Synopsis
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s modification order that significantly restricted a mother’s access to supervised and therapeutic-only visitation after she unilaterally and unnecessarily admitted the child to a mental health facility. The court further upheld the award of exclusive educational rights to the father and the calculation of child support based on the mother’s earning capacity rather than her actual reported income, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that these measures were in the child’s best interest.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision reinforces the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in SAPCR modifications when a parent’s medical decision-making is deemed harmful or “unwarranted.” For practitioners, the case underscores the evidentiary weight of a child’s expressed fear and the testimony of mental health professionals in justifying a departure from the standard possession order. Furthermore, it serves as a reminder that the “best interest” standard can override the rebuttable presumption of a standard possession order when specific, neglectful, or harmful acts are documented.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The litigation arose from a motion to modify a prior decree regarding the parent-child relationship of B.R.H. The primary catalyst for the modification was an incident where the Mother unilaterally placed the child in a psychiatric facility without consulting the Father. At trial, the child’s licensed professional counselor testified that such a placement was a “last step” and that B.R.H. was shocked and exposed to inappropriate behaviors while hospitalized. The trial court also conducted an in-chambers interview with the child, who expressed a profound fear of Mother and her husband, specifically citing a fear of being “sent away” again or subjected to corporal punishment. Additionally, the record indicated that Mother had made minimal effort to contact the child over a significant period leading up to the trial. Regarding financial issues, the trial court found Mother’s earning capacity to be higher than her actual income, justifying a child support award based on that higher capacity.
Issues Decided
The court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by restricting Mother to supervised and therapeutic-only visitation; (2) whether the trial court erred in awarding Father the exclusive right to make all educational decisions, including IEP and special education matters; and (3) whether the trial court erred in calculating child support based on Mother’s earning capacity rather than her actual income.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Family Code § 156.101(a)(1)(A), which allows for modification if it is in the child’s best interest and circumstances have materially and substantially changed. While § 153.252 creates a rebuttable presumption that a standard possession order is in the child’s best interest, § 153.193 mandates that any restrictions on access must not exceed what is required to protect the child’s best interest. The court applied the “abuse of discretion” standard, noting that legal and factual sufficiency are not independent grounds of error but are relevant factors in the overall analysis. For child support, the court looked to the trial court’s authority to consider earning capacity when a parent is underemployed or has the ability to earn more than reported.
Application
In evaluating the possession restrictions, the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s role as the sole judge of witness credibility and demeanor. The court found that the “unwarranted” psychiatric hospitalization constituted a harmful act that justified the move to supervised visitation. The counselor’s testimony provided the necessary link between Mother’s actions and the resulting psychological harm to the child. Regarding educational rights, the court looked at the history of unilateral medical and educational decisions and determined that the child’s stability was best served by vesting these rights in the Father. Finally, the court applied the law to the child support dispute by affirming that the trial court possessed sufficient evidence to find Mother was capable of earning a higher wage, thereby justifying the imputed income calculation.
Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order in its entirety. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring supervised visitation because the record contained substantive evidence that Mother’s unilateral and unwarranted placement of the child in a mental health facility was neglectful and harmful.
The court further held that the award of exclusive educational rights to the Father was supported by the evidence of the parties’ history and the child’s specific needs, and that such a restriction was narrowly tailored to the child’s best interest.
Finally, the court held that the child support award was proper. It concluded that the trial court did not err in basing the support amount on Mother’s earning capacity, as the evidence supported an implied finding that she could earn more than her actual reported income at the time of the hearing.
Practical Application
For family law litigators, In re B.R.H. emphasizes the importance of the “unwarranted medical decision” as a basis for restricting possession. When seeking supervised visitation, practitioners should focus on building a record that includes expert testimony (like the LPC in this case) to characterize a parent’s medical or psychiatric decisions as “last resort” actions taken prematurely. The case also demonstrates the power of the in-chambers interview; if a child expresses fear of a parent’s “medical” discipline, that testimony can be the pivot point for an appellate court to find no abuse of discretion.
Checklists
Strategy for Restricting Possession to Supervised Access
- Document the “Harmful Act”: Secure medical or facility records to prove a decision was made unilaterally and without consultation.
- Expert Testimony: Retain a counselor or child psychologist to testify that the specific medical/psychiatric intervention was “unwarranted” or “shocking” to the child’s development.
- The Fear Factor: If the child is of appropriate age, request an in-chambers interview to document specific fears related to the parent’s decision-making.
- Least Restrictive Means: Be prepared to argue why “therapeutic-only” or supervised visits are the minimum necessary restriction to ensure the child’s safety and mental health under § 153.193.
Proving Earning Capacity for Child Support
- Employment History: Subpoena past W-2s or 1099s to establish a baseline of what the obligor has earned in the past.
- Education and Certification: Introduce evidence of the obligor’s degrees, professional licenses, or specialized training to demonstrate potential.
- Local Labor Market Data: Provide evidence of the average salary for the obligor’s profession in the relevant geographic area.
Citation
In the Interest of B.R.H., a Child, No. 06-25-00069-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana Feb. 11, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~9a0ebc93-1042-45c8-bc2f-048d879dde91~~
Share this content: