Lenz Relocation Factors Support Smith County Move | Cain v. Lemoine-Cain (2025)

Cain v. Lemoine-Cain, 09-24-00337-CV, October 01, 2026.

On appeal from 88th District Court, Hardin County, Texas

Synopsis

The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed a geographic restriction permitting the children’s primary residence in Smith County and contiguous counties upon the mother’s acceptance into a nurse practitioner program. The evidence was factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 153.002 because the contemplated move offered concrete educational, financial, and extended-family benefits while preserving the father’s possession and access under the court-ordered schedule.

Relevance to Family Law

Cain v. Lemoine-Cain illustrates the evidentiary showing necessary to obtain or resist a relocation provision in a Texas divorce or modification proceeding. A parent seeking relocation should connect the proposed move to specific benefits for the children and household—not merely the parent’s personal preference—and should present a workable possession and transportation plan that protects the other parent’s relationship with the children. Conversely, the parent opposing relocation must do more than establish distance or inconvenience; counsel should quantify the loss of school, extracurricular, weekday, and informal parenting opportunities and offer a credible alternative that addresses the relocating parent’s educational, employment, and support needs.

The opinion also reinforces that relocation disputes remain best-interest determinations under Texas Family Code § 153.002. The Lenz relocation considerations and the Holley best-interest factors guide the analysis, but neither operates as a mechanical checklist. On appeal, the trial court’s resolution of competing testimony receives substantial deference, particularly after a bench trial in which the court personally assessed the parents’ credibility, historical involvement, and proposed possession arrangements.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Jeremy Michael Cain and Jade Raquel Lemoine-Cain divorced after having two sons. At the bench trial, the parties had resolved most conservatorship and property issues. They agreed to appointment as joint managing conservators, that Jade would hold the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence, and that Jeremy would pay guideline child support. The principal contested conservatorship issue was the geographic area within which Jade could establish the children’s primary residence.

Jade sought authority to move the children to Smith County if she was accepted into a nurse practitioner program. She had completed much of her advanced-practice education but still needed clinical semesters. She testified that completing the clinical requirements would be easier in Smith County because her sister was a nurse practitioner and her brother-in-law was a hospital chief of surgery in Tyler, giving her access to professional contacts who could assist with clinical placement.

Jade also tied the requested move to financial improvement. At the time of trial, she worked part-time from home and earned approximately $1,000 every other week. She testified that obtaining her nurse practitioner degree would increase her anticipated earnings to more than $100,000 annually. The proposed relocation therefore was not presented solely as a personal or lifestyle choice; it was linked to completion of a defined educational program and a substantial increase in earning capacity.

Extended-family support was another central component of Jade’s case. Her family lived in Smith County, and Jeremy’s family lived relatively near that area. Jade testified that family assistance would benefit the children because Jeremy had not regularly provided additional childcare outside his ordered periods of possession. She also noted that Jeremy traveled to East Texas for holidays, hunting, and family visits.

Jade maintained that the move would not prevent Jeremy from exercising possession. She proposed meeting him at an intermediate location for exchanges and supported a standard possession schedule for the older child. Because the younger child was still breastfeeding and Jeremy had exercised only limited unsupervised time with him, Jade proposed a graduated schedule that would increase Jeremy’s possession as the child grew older.

Jeremy opposed the relocation. He lived in Sour Lake, worked locally Monday through Thursday, and testified that his schedule would allow him to exercise expanded possession, including Thursday overnights. He had exercised possession of the older child, attended school and extracurricular events, participated in baseball, and wanted more time with both children. He argued that a move of approximately 150 to 175 miles would impair his ability to attend practices, games, school functions, and other activities, even if he could continue exercising weekend possession.

Jeremy also challenged the limited possession proposed for the younger child. He testified that he could feed, diaper, and care for the child and wanted the opportunity to develop a closer relationship. Although he had exercised only two unsupervised two-hour visits, he attributed the limited contact to breastfeeding and the lack of expressed breast milk rather than any inability or unwillingness to parent.

The trial court granted the divorce and entered a geographic provision allowing Jade to designate the children’s primary residence in Smith County and contiguous counties upon her acceptance into a nurse practitioner program. Jeremy appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting that provision and contending that relocation was not in the children’s best interest under Lenz and Holley.

Issues Decided

• Whether the evidence was factually sufficient to support a geographic restriction allowing the children’s primary residence to be established in Smith County and contiguous counties upon Jade’s acceptance into a nurse practitioner program.

• Whether the contemplated relocation was in the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

• Whether the evidence, evaluated under the relocation considerations identified in Lenz v. Lenz and the general best-interest considerations described in Holley v. Adams, supported the trial court’s ruling.

• Whether the anticipated educational, economic, and extended-family benefits of the move outweighed the resulting distance from Jeremy and the effect on his participation in the children’s routine activities.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 153.002 provides that the child’s best interest “shall always be the primary consideration of the court” in determining conservatorship, possession, and access. A geographic restriction is therefore evaluated according to its effect on the children’s best interest rather than according to either parent’s independent preference.

Under Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. 2002), a court considering relocation may examine circumstances including:

• The reasons for and against the proposed move;

• The effect of the move on educational, health, and leisure opportunities;

• Whether the move will accommodate any special needs or talents of the children;

• The effect on the children’s relationships with extended family;

• The effect on visitation, communication, and the nonprimary parent’s ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with the children;

• The nonprimary parent’s ability to relocate; and

• Any other circumstances bearing on the children’s best interest.

The Lenz considerations are not exclusive, and no single factor is controlling. They operate within the broader best-interest inquiry.

The court also considered the nonexclusive factors recognized in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976). Those considerations include the children’s desires when appropriate, their present and future emotional and physical needs, any present or future danger, the parenting abilities of the individuals seeking custody, available programs and support, the parties’ plans for the children, the stability of the proposed homes, conduct indicating that an existing parent-child relationship may be improper, and any explanations for that conduct.

A factual-sufficiency challenge requires the reviewing court to consider all the evidence. The appellate court does not substitute its judgment for the factfinder’s merely because the record contains conflicting evidence or could support a different result. In a bench trial, the trial judge determines witness credibility, weighs competing testimony, and resolves evidentiary conflicts.

Application

The appellate court treated Jade’s proposed move as supported by identifiable and child-related advantages. Jade was not asking for unrestricted relocation based on a speculative desire to improve her circumstances. Her authority to relocate was conditioned on acceptance into a nurse practitioner program, and the evidence showed that she had only two clinical semesters remaining. Smith County also offered professional contacts through close family members who could help her secure the clinical placements necessary to complete the program.

The anticipated economic benefit was substantial. Jade’s existing part-time earnings were limited, while completion of the nurse practitioner program could increase her income to more than $100,000 annually. The trial court could reasonably infer that improved income would enhance her ability to provide for the children and increase the stability of their household. The fact that the educational and financial benefits would accrue initially to Jade did not prevent the court from considering their resulting benefit to the children.

The evidence concerning extended family also supported the ruling. Jade’s family was concentrated in Smith County and could provide childcare and practical support. Jeremy’s family lived in the broader East Texas area, and Jeremy already traveled there for family events, holidays, and hunting. The trial court could therefore conclude that the move would increase the children’s access to a family support network rather than isolate them from both sides of the family.

The effect on Jeremy’s relationship with the children presented the strongest countervailing consideration. Jeremy had remained involved with the older child, attended extracurricular and school events, and expressed a desire to exercise more possession. The distance would unquestionably make it harder for him to attend routine activities and would reduce opportunities for informal contact outside the possession order.

Nevertheless, the evidence did not establish that relocation would prevent meaningful possession. Jade proposed a standard possession schedule for the older child, transportation accommodations, and a phased schedule for the younger child. She also testified that she intended to preserve Jeremy’s role in the children’s lives and would not deny access. Jeremy acknowledged that Jade had been cooperative and maintained an open-door approach to co-parenting.

The trial court was also entitled to consider the actual history of possession. Although Jeremy sought increased time with the younger child, he had exercised only four hours of unsupervised possession during the child’s first year. The court could weigh his explanation regarding breastfeeding while also considering the limited historical exercise of independent parenting time. Similarly, the record showed meaningful involvement with the older child but also some missed or limited participation attributable to Jeremy’s own residence, work, or travel choices.

Ultimately, the trial court had to balance the loss of proximity against the move’s educational, economic, and family-support benefits. Because the evidence permitted a reasonable factfinder to determine that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and that Jeremy could continue exercising meaningful possession, the appellate court declined to reweigh the testimony.

Holding

The court held that the evidence was factually sufficient to support the geographic provision allowing the children’s primary residence to be established in Smith County and contiguous counties upon Jade’s acceptance into a nurse practitioner program. The condition tied relocation to a concrete educational objective rather than granting unrestricted authority based on an uncertain future plan.

The court further held that the relocation provision was consistent with the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 153.002. Evidence of improved earning capacity, enhanced access to extended-family support, and better opportunities to complete the mother’s clinical requirements supported the trial court’s determination.

Finally, the court concluded that the adverse effect of distance on Jeremy’s participation did not render the judgment factually insufficient. The possession arrangement preserved scheduled contact, the evidence supported workable exchanges, and the trial court was entitled to resolve the conflicting testimony and weigh the parents’ historical conduct. The Ninth Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the divorce decree.

Practical Application

Relocation pleadings should define the requested geographic area and identify an objective triggering event. A provision tied to acceptance into a specific educational program, receipt of a particular job offer, military reassignment, or another verifiable condition is more defensible than open-ended authority to relocate whenever the primary parent concludes that a move would be beneficial.

The relocating parent should build the case around benefits to the children and household. Evidence should address the anticipated increase in income, availability and cost of housing, school options, childcare, healthcare, extended-family support, and the feasibility of the proposed possession schedule. If the move is education-driven, counsel should establish admission requirements, remaining coursework, clinical or internship availability, program duration, anticipated graduation, and expected compensation after completion.

A parent opposing relocation should develop evidence concerning the quality—not merely the quantity—of existing involvement. Attendance records, coaching responsibilities, school communications, medical appointments, weekday routines, extracurricular schedules, and testimony from neutral witnesses can establish the parenting opportunities that distance would eliminate. General testimony that the move is “too far” is less persuasive than a calendar-based demonstration of the contact that would be lost.

Transportation should be litigated as a substantive issue rather than an afterthought. Counsel should address exchange locations, driving time, allocation of costs, school-night travel, holiday congestion, flight availability where relevant, and remedies for missed or delayed exchanges. A proposed relocation is more likely to withstand review when accompanied by a detailed plan that minimizes the burden on the children and the nonprimary parent.

The case also highlights the importance of historical possession. A parent requesting more time at trial should be prepared to explain why that parent did not previously seek or exercise additional possession. Conversely, the relocating parent should avoid overstating the other parent’s limited involvement when the record shows substantial participation in school, sports, medical care, or extracurricular activities.

Finally, practitioners should try the case with the appellate standard in mind. Relocation decisions are intensely fact-dependent, and credibility findings receive substantial deference. The party seeking reversal will face difficulty if the record contains evidence supporting each major component of the trial court’s best-interest determination, even when substantial contrary evidence also exists.

Checklists

Building the Relocating Parent’s Case

• Identify the precise county, contiguous counties, or other geographic area requested.

• Tie relocation authority to a verifiable triggering event when possible.

• Obtain documentation of admission, enrollment, job offers, transfers, or professional requirements.

• Establish the parent’s current income and anticipated post-move or post-degree income.

• Present evidence connecting improved income to the children’s stability and needs.

• Identify specific relatives who will provide childcare, transportation, emergency assistance, or other support.

• Document schools, healthcare providers, childcare options, housing, and extracurricular opportunities in the proposed location.

• Prepare a complete possession and transportation proposal.

• Address how the children will maintain regular telephone and electronic communication with the other parent.

• Explain how school, holiday, and summer possession can offset reduced weekday contact.

• Demonstrate a history of facilitating possession and co-parenting.

• Address each material Lenz and Holley consideration through testimony and exhibits.

Opposing Relocation

• Quantify the distance, driving time, transportation expense, and school-night burden.

• Create a calendar showing the possession and activities that will be lost or impaired.

• Document attendance at school events, practices, games, medical appointments, and parent-teacher conferences.

• Establish the parent’s weekday availability and capacity to exercise expanded possession.

• Identify local extended-family relationships and support resources.

• Test whether the proposed educational or employment benefit is concrete, contingent, or speculative.

• Investigate whether comparable programs, clinical placements, or employment opportunities exist locally.

• Examine the reliability of the proposed childcare and extended-family support.

• Challenge transportation proposals that are vague, impractical, or excessively burdensome to the children.

• Offer a specific alternative geographic restriction rather than merely opposing the requested move.

• Explain any prior failure to request or exercise additional possession.

• Preserve objections and request findings of fact and conclusions of law when strategically appropriate.

Developing the Best-Interest Record

• Organize evidence under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

• Address the reasons for and against the move.

• Compare educational, healthcare, childcare, and extracurricular opportunities.

• Analyze the effect on each child separately when their ages or needs differ.

• Address the children’s relationships with extended family in both locations.

• Establish each parent’s historical caregiving responsibilities.

• Present evidence concerning the stability of each proposed household.

• Evaluate the effect on possession, communication, and parent-child bonding.

• Account for breastfeeding, infancy, special needs, or developmental considerations.

• Use neutral witnesses and business records when available.

• Avoid relying solely on conclusory testimony that the move is or is not in the children’s best interest.

Drafting the Geographic and Possession Provisions

• State the relocation trigger in objectively verifiable terms.

• Define the permitted geographic area precisely.

• Specify when the relocation authority becomes effective.

• Require reasonable advance notice of the intended move and new address.

• Identify exchange locations and responsibility for transportation.

• Allocate travel expenses.

• Coordinate the geographic provision with the possession schedule.

• Address school enrollment and the effect of school calendars.

• Include electronic communication provisions where appropriate.

• Provide age-appropriate phase-in terms for young children only when supported by evidence.

• State when a phased possession schedule converts to standard or expanded possession.

• Confirm that holiday and summer provisions remain workable after relocation.

Protecting the Appellate Record

• Obtain clear rulings on the requested geographic restriction.

• Introduce documentary support for educational, employment, and financial claims.

• Make an offer of proof for excluded relocation evidence.

• Develop testimony on every contested Lenz consideration.

• Connect each factual assertion to the children’s best interest.

• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when available and useful.

• Object to findings that lack evidentiary support.

• Ensure that maps, mileage evidence, calendars, and possession proposals are admitted as exhibits.

• Preserve factual-sufficiency complaints through the procedures applicable to the type of trial.

• Frame appellate arguments around the entire record rather than evidence favorable to only one party.

Citation

Cain v. Lemoine-Cain, No. 09-24-00337-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 1, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~09516958-8c65-4572-86ed-ebf749471ab7~~