Section 153.002 Limits Possession Injunctions | In re S.M.C. & A.J.C. (2026)

In the Interest of S.M.C. and A.J.C., Children, 05-25-00589-CV, October 08, 2026.

On appeal from 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Family Code § 153.002 does not permit a possession-related injunction broader than the evidence reasonably supports. Because the record did not justify excluding every member of Father’s family during his periods of possession, the Fifth Court of Appeals narrowed the injunction and affirmed the divorce decree as modified.

Relevance to Family Law

This decision reinforces an important limit on the broad discretion afforded trial courts in divorce and conservatorship proceedings. Although the child’s best interest remains the primary consideration under § 153.002, that standard does not authorize categorical restrictions based on generalized concerns, family associations, or evidence directed at only one or two individuals. A possession injunction must be tailored to the specific risk established at trial.

For litigators, the case highlights the need to connect each requested restriction to identified persons, conduct, and harm. Evidence sufficient to prohibit contact with one relative—particularly a relative with a documented history presenting a child-safety concern—does not necessarily justify excluding an entire side of the child’s family. Conversely, counsel defending against an overbroad restriction should propose narrower language rather than treating the dispute as an all-or-nothing question.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Mother and Father married in 2015 and had two children. After the older child’s birth, Mother discovered that Paternal Grandfather was a registered sex offender who had pleaded guilty in 1993 to an offense against his then-twelve-year-old daughter, Father’s sister. The extent to which the children could have contact with Paternal Grandfather became a significant source of conflict between the parents.

During the divorce, temporary orders prohibited both parents from allowing the children to have contact with Paternal Grandfather. The temporary orders also prohibited corporal punishment. Father initially exercised phased possession, including a period of supervision by Paternal Aunt, but later received a standard possession schedule. At one point, the associate judge expressly permitted Paternal Grandmother to care for the children while Father was working.

A Dallas County Domestic Relations Office custody evaluation identified concerns about both parents. The evaluator noted possible manipulation and alienating behavior by Mother, Father’s use of physical punishment, and Father’s judgment concerning Paternal Grandfather. Among other recommendations, the evaluator proposed that Father receive expanded standard possession and, after completing chaperone training, be permitted to provide line-of-sight supervision if the children were around Paternal Grandfather. The evaluator also recommended that the children not stay overnight in the same home as Paternal Grandfather.

Mother opposed contact between the children and Paternal Grandfather under any circumstances. She testified that Father did not take the danger seriously and would not adequately protect the children. She also alleged that Father had violated the temporary no-contact order by requiring Daughter to participate in a FaceTime call with Paternal Grandfather. Father denied that the call occurred. Daughter’s therapist testified that she believed Daughter’s account.

The trial evidence also addressed the attitudes and conduct of other paternal relatives. Paternal Grandmother testified concerning the decades-old offense and stated that Paternal Grandfather had changed. Mother testified about her concern that Father’s family minimized the risk. The record nevertheless did not establish that every member of Father’s family posed a danger to the children.

Following the one-day bench trial, the trial court appointed Mother sole managing conservator and Father possessory conservator. In addition to prohibiting any contact with Paternal Grandfather, the court permanently enjoined Father from allowing any other member of his family to be present during his possession of the children.

Father did not challenge the injunction prohibiting contact with Paternal Grandfather. He challenged the separate injunction excluding every other member of his family, arguing that it was unsupported by the pleadings, not tried by consent, vague, overbroad, and unsupported by legally or factually sufficient evidence.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court could permanently prohibit every member of Father’s family from being present during Father’s periods of possession when the evidence principally concerned Paternal Grandfather and particular child-safety concerns.

• Whether the challenged restriction was reasonably related to the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

• Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the injunction’s breadth.

• Whether the appellate court could preserve the supported portion of the trial court’s relief by modifying the decree to impose a narrower injunction.

• Whether the procedural record—including the absence of express findings and Father’s failure to file a notice of past-due findings—required the appellate court to imply findings supporting the judgment when those findings were supported by the record.

Rules Applied

Texas Family Code § 153.002 provides that the child’s best interest is always the court’s primary consideration in determining issues of conservatorship, possession, and access. That broad best-interest authority does not dispense with the need for evidence demonstrating a reasonable relationship between a restriction and the child’s welfare.

Possession restrictions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Under that framework, legal and factual sufficiency are relevant to whether the trial court had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion and whether it acted reasonably in applying that information.

A permanent injunction affecting possession must be sufficiently definite and appropriately tailored to the conduct or risk established by the evidence. A trial court may not extend an injunction to individuals or conduct merely because they share a familial association with someone who presents a demonstrated concern.

When findings of fact and conclusions of law are not properly obtained, an appellate court generally implies findings necessary to support the judgment, provided those findings are supported by the record. Here, Father requested findings but did not file the notice of past-due findings contemplated by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297.

An appellate court may modify a judgment when the record supports narrower relief and the necessary correction can be made without a new trial.

Application

The evidence established a serious and legitimate dispute concerning Paternal Grandfather. His criminal history, Father’s judgment about that history, the alleged FaceTime contact, and the parents’ conflicting views about supervision gave the trial court a substantial basis to address contact between Paternal Grandfather and the children. Indeed, Father did not appeal the separate permanent injunction prohibiting that contact.

The problem was the trial court’s extension of the restriction from Paternal Grandfather to every member of Father’s family. The decree did not distinguish among relatives, identify which additional relatives posed a risk, or limit the prohibition to conduct connected to Paternal Grandfather. It categorically prevented all paternal relatives from being present during Father’s possession.

That breadth exceeded the proof. The trial record included evidence about the views and conduct of certain family members, but it did not establish that every member of Father’s family endangered the children or would facilitate prohibited contact with Paternal Grandfather. Nor did the evidence demonstrate that excluding the entire paternal family was necessary to protect the children.

The restriction was therefore not reasonably related to the children’s best interest in the form ordered. The court of appeals did not conclude that the trial court lacked authority to impose any additional restriction. Instead, it determined that the record and the trial court’s implied findings supported narrower relief. Modification, rather than reversal of the entire decree, was the appropriate remedy.

Holding

The Fifth Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by permanently enjoining Father from allowing every member of his family to be present during his periods of possession. The evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that such a comprehensive prohibition was reasonably related to the children’s best interest under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

The court further held that the record supported a narrower injunction consistent with the trial court’s implied findings. It therefore modified the challenged portion of the divorce decree rather than eliminating all protective relief.

The court affirmed the divorce decree as modified. The separate injunction prohibiting contact between the children and Paternal Grandfather remained undisturbed because Father did not challenge it on appeal.

Practical Application

Build the requested restriction person by person. If a party seeks to exclude several relatives, counsel should present evidence concerning each individual. Shared family membership is not a substitute for proof of conduct, access, complicity, or risk.

Tie the evidence to the requested wording. A record concerning one relative will usually support an injunction directed at that relative. To obtain broader relief, establish why other relatives are likely to expose the child to the prohibited person, disregard court orders, conceal contact, or otherwise create a concrete danger.

Offer graduated alternatives. Depending on the evidence, less restrictive options may include supervised contact, line-of-sight supervision, restrictions on transportation, prohibitions against overnight stays, location-based restrictions, or an order forbidding relatives from facilitating contact with a specified person.

Use the proposed decree as a trial exhibit. The language of the requested injunction should be before the court while the evidence is developed. This allows counsel to establish a factual predicate for each operative term and reduces the risk that the signed decree will include relief broader than what was tried.

Object to overbroad language before entry. A party opposing the restriction should identify the unsupported categories of persons and conduct, propose narrower language, and obtain a ruling. A motion for reconsideration or motion to modify the proposed judgment may be useful, but trial counsel should not wait until appeal to begin attacking the injunction’s scope.

Preserve findings practice. After requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law, calendar the deadline for a notice of past-due findings under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297. Failure to complete that process may result in implied findings supporting the judgment.

Separate undisputed protection from disputed overreach. Father did not challenge the no-contact injunction concerning Paternal Grandfather. That posture allowed the appellate dispute to focus on whether the additional all-family prohibition was necessary. In similar cases, isolating the contested language can strengthen both trial and appellate arguments.

For the requesting party, prove why narrower relief will not work. If the theory is that extended family members will circumvent a no-contact order, present specific evidence of attempted circumvention, prior violations, concealment, minimization of risk, or an inability to enforce the order through less restrictive means.

Checklists

Seeking a Possession-Related Injunction

• Identify each person whose contact with the child should be restricted.
• Plead the specific injunctive relief requested.
• Describe the conduct to be prohibited with objective, enforceable terms.
• Connect each proposed restriction to the child’s best interest.
• Present evidence concerning each person covered by the proposed order.
• Establish the nature, severity, and immediacy of the alleged risk.
• Document prior violations of temporary orders or safety plans.
• Explain why existing orders are insufficient.
• Explain why less restrictive alternatives would not protect the child.
• Offer proposed injunction language as a trial exhibit.
• Request express findings supporting the necessity and scope of the restriction.

Opposing an Overbroad Injunction

• Compare the persons addressed by the evidence with the persons covered by the requested order.
• Identify relatives or third parties about whom no adverse evidence was introduced.
• Distinguish concern about one individual from generalized concern about an entire family.
• Challenge undefined terms such as “family,” “contact,” or “present.”
• Argue that the order must be reasonably related to a demonstrated best-interest concern.
• Propose narrower language directed at the proven risk.
• Identify workable alternatives, including supervision or anti-facilitation provisions.
• Object to relief unsupported by the pleadings.
• Object when an unpleaded issue was not clearly tried by consent.
• Secure a ruling on objections to the proposed decree.
• File an appropriate post-judgment motion if the signed decree exceeds the evidence.

Developing the Evidentiary Record

• Obtain certified records relevant to criminal history or sex-offender status.
• Authenticate communications showing prohibited or attempted contact.
• Develop testimony about prior violations of court orders.
• Establish who was present during each alleged incident.
• Distinguish firsthand observations from assumptions about family attitudes.
• Examine whether relatives have facilitated, concealed, or opposed prohibited contact.
• Address the reliability and scope of custody-evaluation recommendations.
• Present expert testimony when specialized risk assessment is material.
• Develop evidence concerning the feasibility of supervision.
• Establish how the proposed restriction will affect the child’s existing family relationships.

Preserving Error and Findings

• Make specific objections to the injunction’s scope, wording, and evidentiary basis.
• State whether the objection is based on pleadings, trial by consent, vagueness, overbreadth, or evidentiary insufficiency.
• Request findings of fact and conclusions of law when available.
• Calendar the deadline for filing a notice of past-due findings under Rule 297.
• Request additional or amended findings when necessary.
• Ensure that proposed injunction language and objections appear in the record.
• Challenge each distinct restriction that should be reviewed on appeal.
• Confirm that the notice of appeal encompasses the final decree and any relevant post-judgment orders.

Drafting an Enforceable Decree

• Name the specific individuals covered by the injunction.
• Define prohibited “contact,” including whether it covers electronic communications.
• State whether incidental public contact is prohibited.
• Specify any permitted supervision and who may serve as supervisor.
• Address transportation, overnight stays, and exchanges separately.
• Prohibit facilitation of contact if the evidence supports that relief.
• Avoid categorical restrictions unsupported by individualized evidence.
• Confirm that every restriction tracks the pleadings and trial record.
• Use language sufficiently definite to permit enforcement by contempt.
• Include only the least restrictive terms necessary to protect the child.

Citation

In re S.M.C. & A.J.C., No. 05-25-00589-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 8, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

~~8407f63f-67b5-4315-aa02-e2abee7971de~~