Adejokun v. Obosi, 14-25-00044-CV, May 07, 2026.
On appeal from 387th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a parent complaining about exclusion of a child’s abuse outcry must actually invoke Family Code section 104.006 in the trial court and request the predicate reliability hearing; otherwise, the complaint is not preserved for appellate review. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a request to interview the child regarding possession and access in this divorce SAPCR.
Relevance to Family Law
This is a preservation case with real consequences for family-law trial practice. In custody and possession disputes involving abuse allegations, lawyers often assume the appellate court will reach the merits if the record reflects the seriousness of the accusations. Adejokun is a reminder that it will not. If you want a child’s hearsay outcry admitted under Family Code section 104.006, you must say so, develop the record, and ask for the statutory reliability hearing. The opinion also reinforces that requests for in-chambers child interviews under the Family Code are not self-executing and remain subject to the trial court’s discretion depending on the issue presented and the child’s role in the dispute.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
This appeal arose from a Fort Bend County divorce involving one child, referred to by the court as Alice. The parties married in 2019, though the child had been born earlier in 2014 in Nigeria. After the family moved to the United States, the father relocated to Georgia in 2021, and the mother filed for divorce later that year.
The dispute became significantly more serious after the child was hospitalized in February 2022 for psychiatric treatment related to reported tactile and auditory hallucinations. During that hospitalization, the child allegedly stated that the father put his foot on her “boom boom,” a term the record reflected she used to refer to her bottom. DFPS investigated, interviewed the parents and child, and obtained a CAC forensic interview. The investigator testified at trial, and the DFPS report was admitted. But DFPS ultimately ruled out the allegation and closed the investigation.
At the May 2024 bench trial, the mother sought to deny the father possession and access entirely. The father denied the allegations, requested a stepped possession plan, and expressed concern that the child might be coached if contact resumed without safeguards. Before trial, the mother also filed a motion asking the court to confer with the child, who was 10 years old at the time, regarding possession and access and other issues. The trial court denied that request. In the final judgment, the court appointed the mother sole managing conservator, the father possessory conservator, ordered monthly supervised possession, and provided for specified electronic communication. The mother appealed, challenging exclusion of certain hearsay testimony concerning the child’s alleged abuse outcry and the denial of the request for an in-chambers interview.
Issues Decided
- Whether the mother preserved appellate review of the trial court’s exclusion of testimony concerning the child’s alleged sexual-abuse hearsay statements under Texas Family Code section 104.006.
- Whether the trial court erred by failing to conduct a section 104.006 reliability hearing before excluding the hearsay statements.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the mother’s request that the court interview the child concerning possession and access.
Rules Applied
The court’s analysis centered on ordinary error-preservation principles and the statutory outcry framework in family cases.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) requires a timely request, objection, or motion in the trial court stating the grounds with sufficient specificity to preserve a complaint for appellate review.
- Texas Rule of Evidence 801(d) defines hearsay.
- The proponent of hearsay bears the burden to establish that the evidence falls within an applicable exception. The court cited Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 908 n.5 (Tex. 2004), for that proposition.
- Texas Family Code section 104.006 creates a hearsay exception in SAPCR proceedings for certain statements by a child age twelve or younger describing alleged abuse, but admissibility depends on statutory predicates, including a hearing outside the jury’s presence and a judicial finding of reliability.
- The court relied on preservation authority holding that raising a complaint for the first time in a motion for new trial does not satisfy the contemporaneous-objection rule when the issue could have been raised earlier, citing Dumler v. Quality Work by Davidson, No. 14-06-00536-CV, 2008 WL 89961, at 4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 10, 2008, no pet.), and St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Dal-Worth Tank Co.*, 974 S.W.2d 51, 53 (Tex. 1998).
- In addressing the mother’s reliance on In re K.L., 91 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.), the court distinguished that case because admissibility under section 104.006 had actually been presented to and considered by the trial court there.
As to the interview issue, the appellate court applied abuse-of-discretion review to the trial court’s ruling on whether to interview the child regarding possession and access.
Application
The appellate court treated the hearsay issue first and, notably, never reached the merits of whether the child’s statements were reliable or should have been admitted. Instead, the court focused on what happened at trial when hearsay objections were made. The mother argued on appeal that the statements were admissible under Family Code section 104.006 and that the trial court should have conducted the statutory hearing. But the court found that she never made that argument in the trial court when the evidence was being offered.
That omission was dispositive. Because section 104.006 is a statutory hearsay exception, the burden rested on the proponent to invoke it and show its applicability. The court emphasized that the mother did not respond to the hearsay objections by citing section 104.006, did not request the required reliability hearing, and did not otherwise ask the trial court to admit the testimony under that statutory framework. By the time she referred generally in her post-judgment motion to excluded outcry testimony and evidence of abuse, it was too late. A motion for new trial cannot retroactively preserve an evidentiary complaint that could have been raised contemporaneously.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the trial court had an independent duty to conduct a section 104.006 hearing on its own initiative. The mother relied on In re K.L. for the proposition that the statutory requirements are mandatory. The Fourteenth Court did not disagree that the statute imposes mandatory procedural predicates when the exception is invoked. But it held that In re K.L. did not stand for a sua sponte duty where the proponent never raised section 104.006 in the first place. In other words, mandatory does not mean self-activating.
On the child-interview issue, the court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in denying the request to confer with the child regarding possession and access. Although the opinion snippet provided here does not set out the full reasoning on that point, the court’s disposition makes clear that the trial judge retained discretion and that the mother did not demonstrate reversible error in the denial. Given the overall record—DFPS investigation, CAC materials, supervised visitation structure, and the bench trial context—the appellate court was unwilling to disturb the trial court’s handling of that request.
Holding
The court held that the mother failed to preserve error regarding exclusion of the child’s alleged abuse outcry. Because she did not invoke Texas Family Code section 104.006 at trial and did not request the required reliability hearing when the hearsay objections were made, she forfeited appellate review of both the exclusion ruling and the complaint that no section 104.006 hearing occurred.
The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the mother’s motion to interview the child concerning possession and access. The final judgment was affirmed.
Practical Application
For Texas family-law litigators, Adejokun is less about substantive child-abuse law than about trial mechanics. If your theory depends on a child’s hearsay outcry, you cannot litigate as though the facts alone will carry the issue. You need a deliberate evidentiary plan: identify the statement, identify the witness through whom it will be offered, invoke section 104.006 expressly, request the hearing outside the factfinder’s presence, and make a record on reliability. If you do not, the court of appeals may never engage the outcry issue at all.
The case also matters in contested conservatorship and possession litigation where one side seeks to have the judge interview the child. Practitioners should not assume that filing the motion is enough, or that the existence of sharply disputed access issues makes the interview mandatory. You need to tie the request carefully to the governing statutory framework, the precise issue before the court, the child’s age, and why the interview would materially assist the best-interest determination without creating undue risk of harm, coaching concerns, or cumulative proof.
The opinion is also useful in post-trial strategy. General complaints in a motion for new trial about excluded “outcry” or “abuse” evidence will not rescue a record that lacked a contemporaneous, specific request at trial. Preservation must be built in real time, not reconstructed after judgment.
In practical terms, this case should prompt trial lawyers to treat section 104.006 like any other specialized evidentiary gateway. That means pretrial notice, a written motion or bench brief where appropriate, witness sequencing that allows the court to hear the predicate, an offer of proof if excluded, and a clean statement on the record as to why the evidence is admissible. In abuse-driven SAPCR litigation, those steps are not optional appellate insurance; they are the difference between a merits review and an affirmance based on waiver.
Checklists
Preserve Section 104.006 Error at Trial
- Identify before trial each child statement you intend to offer under Family Code section 104.006.
- Confirm the child was twelve years of age or younger when the statement was made.
- Make an express record that you are offering the statement under Texas Family Code section 104.006.
- Request the required reliability hearing outside the presence of the jury, or outside the merits presentation in a bench trial if necessary.
- Obtain a ruling on admissibility under section 104.006.
- If the court excludes the evidence, make a detailed offer of proof stating the substance of the testimony and the statutory basis for admission.
- Do not rely on a later motion for new trial to preserve the complaint.
Build the Reliability Record
- Present the circumstances under which the child made the statement.
- Develop evidence bearing on spontaneity, consistency, terminology, age-appropriate language, and lack of suggestiveness.
- Address the child’s mental-health history or other factors that may affect reliability.
- Consider whether DFPS records, CAC materials, or treating-provider testimony strengthen or complicate the reliability showing.
- Be prepared to distinguish credibility disputes from admissibility questions.
Respond to Hearsay Objections Strategically
- When the opponent objects to hearsay, immediately state the applicable exception.
- Cite section 104.006 by name and section number on the record.
- Ask the court to hear the predicate before sustaining the objection.
- If the court sustains the objection without a hearing, renew your request and secure a ruling.
- If multiple witnesses may relay the same outcry, preserve the issue with each witness as necessary.
Handle Requests for In-Chambers Child Interviews
- File a written motion identifying the statutory basis for the interview.
- Specify whether the interview is sought on conservatorship, primary residence, possession and access, or another defined issue.
- Address the child’s age and why the interview is developmentally appropriate.
- Explain why the interview will aid the best-interest analysis beyond the evidence already available.
- Anticipate arguments about coaching, emotional harm, or cumulative evidence.
- Request a clear ruling on the record.
Protect the Appellate Record in Abuse-Driven SAPCR Trials
- Use pretrial briefing for unusual evidentiary issues.
- Mark and tender supporting records, including DFPS and CAC materials, as permitted.
- Make offers of proof immediately after exclusion.
- Ensure the court reporter captures the legal basis for every contested ruling.
- Tie your evidentiary requests to the ultimate possession and conservatorship issues.
- Review the record before resting to confirm that key preservation steps are complete.
Citation
Adejokun v. Obosi, No. 14-25-00044-CV, memorandum opinion (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~9cb1b28b-4391-43ff-8db2-5c0bfd8e2a5f~~
Share this content: