Family Code § 105.003 Requires Reporter’s Record in Contested SAPCR Default Hearings | In re Interest of M.R.L. (2026)
In the Interest of M.R.L., 04-24-00523-CV, July 29, 2026.
On appeal from 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Synopsis
Texas Family Code § 105.003(c) requires the trial court to ensure that a reporter’s record is made in a contested SAPCR final hearing unless all parties waive the record with the court’s consent. When a respondent does not appear and is not represented by counsel, that party cannot waive the record, so a default final SAPCR order entered without a reporter’s record is reversible error apparent on the face of the record and must be remanded for new trial.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion matters well beyond standalone SAPCR litigation. The same problem can arise in divorce cases involving conservatorship, possession, child support, and other parent-child issues embedded in a divorce decree. For family-law trial lawyers, the case is a pointed reminder that a “prove-up by default” in any contested parent-child matter is procedurally different from an ordinary civil default: if the case includes contested SAPCR relief, the court must ensure a reporter’s record exists unless all parties validly waive it. That affects trial setting strategy, withdrawal timing, appellate preservation, restricted appeals, and the enforceability of default orders touching custody or support.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The father filed a SAPCR seeking joint managing conservatorship and the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence within Bexar and contiguous counties. The mother answered and counterpetitioned, seeking substantially different relief: sole managing conservatorship and no geographic restriction on the child’s residence. That pleading posture made the case contested.
Shortly before the final hearing, the father moved to set the matter for a non-jury final hearing on July 29, 2024. Later that same day, the mother’s attorney moved to withdraw. The withdrawal motion stated the trial date, and the trial court ultimately granted withdrawal after the mother did not appear at the withdrawal hearing. The withdrawal order again reflected the July 29, 2024 trial setting.
The mother did not appear at the final hearing, and she was no longer represented by counsel. Two days later, the trial court signed a Default Final Order in Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship. The order recited that the mother had notice of the final hearing, failed to appear, and defaulted. Critically, it also recited that a “record was waived by the parties with the consent of the court.” The mother filed a pro se notice of appeal and later moved unsuccessfully to set aside the default judgment.
Issues Decided
- Whether Texas Family Code § 105.003(c) required the trial court to ensure that a reporter’s record was made at this contested SAPCR final hearing.
- Whether an absent, unrepresented party could waive the making of a reporter’s record for purposes of § 105.003(c).
- Whether entry of a default final SAPCR order without a reporter’s record constituted reversible error apparent on the face of the record.
Rules Applied
Section 105.003(c) of the Texas Family Code provides that, in a contested hearing in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, “a record shall be made as in civil cases generally unless waived by the parties with the consent of the court.” The Fourth Court treated that text as imposing an affirmative duty on the trial court to ensure that a record is made.
The court relied on a line of cases holding that failure to make a reporter’s record in a contested SAPCR proceeding is error apparent on the face of the record when there is no valid waiver:
- In re Marriage of Aguilar, No. 07-20-00040-CV, 2021 WL 68683, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 7, 2021, no pet.)
- In re J.W., No. 01-18-00932-CV, 2020 WL 573259, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 6, 2020, no pet.)
- Arbogust v. Graham, No. 03-17-00800-CV, 2018 WL 3150996, at 1 n.2, 2 (Tex. App.—Austin June 28, 2018, no pet.)
- Thompson v. Thompson, No. 02-13-00292-CV, 2014 WL 3865951, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 7, 2014, no pet.)
The opinion also reflects a practical appellate rule: when the absent party was neither present nor represented by counsel, the judgment recital that the parties waived the record does not establish a valid waiver as to that absent party.
Application
The Fourth Court began with the procedural posture that mattered most: this was not an uncontested prove-up. The pleadings showed a live dispute over conservatorship structure and the right to establish the child’s primary residence. That made the July 29 hearing a contested SAPCR final hearing within the meaning of § 105.003(c), even though only one side appeared.
From there, the court focused on the absence of any valid waiver. The default order recited that the parties waived the record with the court’s consent, but the clerk’s record showed the mother was not present and was not represented by counsel at trial. Under the authorities cited, that ended the inquiry. A party who is absent and unrepresented cannot waive the making of a reporter’s record in a contested parent-child proceeding. Because the statute imposes an affirmative duty on the trial court, the court itself errs by proceeding without a record and by consenting to a purported waiver that the absent party could not make.
That error was not merely technical. The appellate court characterized it as error apparent on the face of the record and harmful because it prevented the appellant from properly presenting the appeal. Without a reporter’s record, meaningful review of the evidentiary basis for conservatorship findings, best-interest determinations, or child-support rulings becomes impossible. On that basis, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial without reaching the mother’s other complaints.
Holding
The court held that Texas Family Code § 105.003(c) required the trial court to ensure that a reporter’s record was made at this contested SAPCR final hearing. Because the pleadings established a contested parent-child dispute, the statute applied notwithstanding the respondent’s failure to appear at trial.
The court further held that the absent mother, who was not represented by counsel at the final hearing, could not waive the making of the reporter’s record. As a result, the judgment recital stating that the parties waived the record did not create a valid waiver under § 105.003(c).
Finally, the court held that entry of the default final SAPCR order without a reporter’s record was reversible error apparent on the face of the record. The absence of the record was harmful because it prevented proper appellate review, so the remedy was reversal and remand for a new trial.
Practical Application
For trial lawyers seeking default relief, M.R.L. is a cautionary case about treating a contested SAPCR prove-up like an ordinary default docket matter. If the opposing party has answered, filed a counterpetition, or otherwise joined issue on conservatorship, possession, support, or geographic restriction, § 105.003(c) is in play. The safest assumption is that a court reporter must be present and recording unless every party validly waives the record on the record and with the court’s consent.
The case also has real consequences for attorney withdrawal practice. Here, counsel withdrew shortly before trial, leaving the respondent unrepresented at the final hearing. That fact did not just create optics; it made waiver of the reporter’s record impossible as to the absent party. Practitioners moving to withdraw near final hearing settings should anticipate downstream appellate risk if the case proceeds by default on SAPCR issues without a reporter’s record.
For appellate lawyers, M.R.L. is an efficient attack point in restricted appeals and ordinary appeals from default family-law judgments. If the clerk’s record shows a contested SAPCR matter, a default final hearing, no reporter’s record, and an absent unrepresented respondent, the error may be apparent from the face of the record without the need to litigate more fact-intensive grounds. That can be especially significant where the appellant also wants to challenge best-interest findings, support evidence, or relief outside the pleadings but lacks a transcript to do so.
In divorce litigation, do not miss the opinion’s broader reach. Any final decree adjudicating parent-child issues may trigger the same problem even if the case also includes property division. A no-answer default on property claims is one thing; a post-answer default or prove-up affecting conservatorship and child support is another. If the decree contains SAPCR relief, build the record accordingly.
Checklists
Default Final Hearing in a Contested SAPCR
- Confirm from the pleadings whether the case is contested on any parent-child issue.
- Treat an answer, counterpetition, or competing request for conservatorship or primary-residence rights as sufficient to trigger § 105.003(c).
- Ensure a court reporter is requested and present for the final hearing.
- State on the record the nature of the contested relief being sought.
- Avoid proceeding on a “waiver of record” theory unless every party personally or through counsel validly waives the record and the court consents.
When Opposing Counsel Has Withdrawn Before Trial
- Review the withdrawal order and service details carefully.
- Assume an absent, now-unrepresented party cannot waive the reporter’s record.
- Make a reporter’s record even if the court expects a simple default prove-up.
- Create a clean notice record in the clerk’s file regarding the trial setting.
- Consider whether fairness and appellate durability favor resetting rather than taking a same-track default.
Preserving a Default Judgment Against Appellate Reversal
- Have the reporter transcribe the full prove-up testimony.
- Offer and admit documentary support for conservatorship, child support, and any requested restrictions.
- Obtain express best-interest testimony tied to the requested orders.
- Match the requested relief to the live pleadings.
- Avoid reliance on judgment recitals that conflict with the clerk’s record.
Attacking a Default SAPCR Order on Appeal
- Determine whether the appellant was absent and unrepresented at the final hearing.
- Check whether the clerk’s record reflects the matter was contested through pleadings.
- Verify whether a reporter’s record exists.
- If no record exists, evaluate § 105.003(c) as a face-of-the-record ground for reversal.
- Pair the no-record issue with alternative complaints, such as relief outside the pleadings or insufficient support findings, while recognizing the no-record issue may be dispositive.
Trial Court Practice Points
- Do not consent to waiver of the record in a contested SAPCR unless all parties validly waive it.
- Scrutinize default orders reciting waiver when one side is absent.
- Require a record in default final hearings involving conservatorship, possession, or support disputes.
- Recognize that the absence of a transcript may itself compel reversal on appeal.
- Use standardized family-law default procedures that distinguish SAPCR matters from ordinary civil defaults.
Citation
In the Interest of M.R.L., No. 04-24-00523-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 29, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~1fe5e765-3ca8-4e91-87d4-e4797b5e6c82~~
Share this content:
