When allegations of domestic violence and child abuse arise during divorce proceedings, can a trial judge’s hostile comments and adversarial questioning demonstrate such extreme bias that it violates due process? A groundbreaking May 2025 decision from the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals in Matter of Marriage of B. answers this question affirmatively, and provides crucial guidance for Dallas-area families navigating divorce cases involving family violence claims. This case demonstrates that even in bench trials where judges have broad discretion to question witnesses, there are constitutional limits when judicial conduct becomes so egregious it denies a fair trial.
Per the published opinion, the court’s holding establishes an important precedent: parties can raise claims of judicial bias for the first time on appeal when the trial judge’s conduct is so extreme it amounts to a due process violation. For divorcing couples dealing with sensitive allegations of abuse, this decision reinforces that factfinders must remain impartial—and that evidence of family violence cannot be dismissed simply because criminal charges weren’t pursued.
Background: A Marriage Marked by Allegations of Violence
L.B. and J.B. married in April 2018. L.B. had one child from a previous marriage, and the couple had two children together during their marriage. According to L.B., the marriage involved multiple incidents of domestic violence—at least four occasions where J.B. was allegedly physically violent toward her, including choking incidents in December 2019, April 2022, and October 2022, plus a February 2023 assault. J.B. denied all these allegations, claiming L.B. only made such accusations when he discussed divorce.
The catalyst for divorce proceedings was a March 1, 2023 incident involving the couple’s young son, B.B. L.B. alleged she heard a loud slapping sound while J.B. was changing B.B.’s diaper. J.B. contended B.B. was kicking him and playing with his dirty diaper, so he “popped” the child’s bottom. L.B. claimed she found B.B. coughing, choking, with welts on his bottom and blood on his lip. She alleged J.B. couldn’t explain why B.B. was coughing and bleeding. L.B. took B.B. to the bathroom, where she claimed he vomited fecal matter and told her J.B. had put fecal matter from his finger into the child’s mouth. L.B. called law enforcement, and J.B. was arrested that night with instructions not to contact the children or approach L.B.’s residence.
J.B. filed for divorce on April 25, 2023, seeking a conservatorship determination. On May 3, 2023, he was arrested again for allegedly violating his bond conditions by stalking L.B., driving past her residence while in possession of two handguns. J.B. claimed these were accidental calls when he allegedly called L.B. twice on July 3, 2023, again violating bond conditions.
L.B. countersued for divorce on May 18, 2023, seeking protective orders and appointment as sole managing conservator (SMC). She alleged J.B. had choked her in previous incidents, and after an initial protective order hearing in September 2023 where the trial judge questioned whether L.B.’s allegations could constitute perjury and suggested Munchausen syndrome as an explanation, L.B. filed police reports in September 2023 about the previously unreported 2022 strangulation incidents.
Child Protective Services (CPS) investigated and concluded the allegations of physical abuse against B.B. were valid, developing a safety plan requiring J.B. to avoid contact with the children. CPS recommended family-based safety services, which J.B. refused. B.B.’s trauma therapist testified the child showed signs of trauma and that her office’s policy prohibited involving alleged abusers in therapy, though L.B. had requested J.B.’s involvement.
The trial court denied L.B.’s protective order request. In October 2023, the court entered temporary orders naming both parents joint managing conservators (JMCs) with regular custody exchanges. L.B. alleged J.B. threw acid on her vehicle during a December 2023 exchange.
The Trial Court’s Troubling Conduct and Final Orders
At the January 2024 bench trial, J.B. argued L.B. fabricated all abuse allegations. He introduced evidence that Victoria Police Department (VPD), Victoria County Sheriff’s Office (VCSO), and the District Attorney’s office declined to pursue investigation of various alleged incidents, and that a grand jury no-billed charges from the May 2023 stalking arrest.
The trial featured extensive questioning by the trial judge that the appellate court would later characterize as demonstrating extreme bias. The judge questioned L.B.’s credibility based on her prior recantation of the December 2019 choking allegation, stating her accusations “have not been confirmed by anyone” and that she constantly made “unfounded” criminal complaints. The judge asked B.B.’s therapist whether she’d considered Munchausen syndrome as an explanation for the allegations.
L.B. introduced significant physical evidence: audio recordings from the April 2022 incident (with appellee yelling and a smacking sound, plus J.B. stating that if L.B. ever does anything to him, “she will never have to worry about her kids again”); an audio recording from the March 2023 incident showing B.B. gagging and coughing, L.B. asking why B.B. was bleeding and coughing, J.B. saying he didn’t know, and B.B. stating poop was in his mouth from “daddy’s finger”; photos showing bruises on L.B.’s throat, arms, and torso; and CPS and VPD reports documenting the incidents.
VPD Officer Levario testified she saw a scratch on B.B.’s face, “bright red” welts on his bottom, and “spit up” containing what appeared to be fecal matter in the bathtub on March 1, 2023. She drafted an offense report finding J.B. caused bodily injury to B.B. by placing fecal matter in his mouth. VPD Detective Tate, who specialized in child sexual and physical abuse cases, testified she reviewed video showing welt marks on B.B.’s body, heard B.B. state on audio that his dad put poop in his mouth, and concluded an abuse incident occurred.
Most troublingly, when VPD Investigator Johnson testified that J.B. was arrested with two handguns during the stalking incident, the trial judge questioned the relevance, asking rhetorically: “Do you want to know how many handguns are in my vehicle, Counsel?” When L.B.’s counsel responded that the judge didn’t have a stalking offense or charge, the judge stated: “Not yet.”
The trial court entered final orders on February 21, 2024, granting the divorce and appointing J.B. as SMC and L.B. as possessory conservator. The court’s findings included: L.B. was not credible; the preponderance of evidence didn’t establish a history of family violence by J.B.; L.B. couldn’t reach shared decisions with J.B.; and L.B. couldn’t encourage a positive relationship between the children and J.B. The court found the presumption favoring JMC appointment was rebutted based on these factors.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis: Egregious Bias and Insufficient Evidence
L.B. appealed, arguing the trial court lacked discretion to appoint J.B. as SMC without him pleading for such relief, and that the court abused its discretion through biased evaluation of evidence. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals addressed multiple critical issues.
Trial Courts Have Broad Discretion in Original Custody Determinations
The court first addressed whether the trial court could appoint J.B. as SMC when his live pleadings only sought JMC appointment. The appellate court held that in original custody determinations (unlike modification proceedings), trial courts have broad discretion to make any appropriate conservatorship finding regardless of specific pleadings, so long as conservatorship is at issue.
Texas Family Code requires trial courts to appoint either an SMC or JMCs in divorce cases involving children. Because the best interest of children is the paramount concern, “technical pleading rules are of reduced significance” in custody cases. As long as parties have notice that conservatorship is disputed, which is inherent in any original custody determination, the trial court has discretion to appoint either parent as SMC if doing so serves the children’s best interests.
This holding differs from modification cases, where pleading requirements apply more strictly. The court distinguished cases like B. v. M., B. v. J., and In re A.B.H., all of which held that in modification proceedings, courts cannot appoint a party as SMC without explicit pleadings seeking such relief.
The Presumption Favoring Joint Managing Conservatorship
Texas Family Code Section 153.131(b) creates a rebuttable presumption that appointing both parents as JMCs is in children’s best interests. This presumption is removed if there’s a finding of family violence. The presumption can also be rebutted by considering seven factors under Section 153.134(a), including: (1) whether children’s needs will benefit from JMC appointment; (2) parents’ ability to give first priority to children’s welfare and reach shared decisions; (3) whether each parent can encourage a positive relationship between children and the other parent; (4) whether both parents participated in child-rearing before filing; (5) geographical proximity; (6) children’s preference if age 12 or older; and (7) any other relevant factor.
The trial court must make specific factual findings supporting its conclusion that the presumption was rebutted. The trial court here relied on factors two and three, finding L.B. couldn’t give first priority to children’s welfare or reach shared decisions with J.B., and couldn’t encourage a positive relationship between children and J.B.
Judicial Bias: When Conduct Becomes Constitutionally Problematic
The appellate court held that while trial judges in bench trials have leeway to question witnesses extensively and even adversarially, there are constitutional limits. Drawing on criminal law precedent from B. v. State and H. v. State, and civil precedent from Office of Public Utility Counsel v. Public Utility Commission, the court held that parties can raise judicial bias for the first time on appeal when conduct is “so egregious as to deem the judge biased” and deny due process.
Bias becomes impermissible when it comes “from an extrajudicial source and result[s] in an opinion on the merits of the case other than what the judge learned from participating in the case.” The trial judge’s comments about his personal gun ownership, statement about not yet being charged with stalking, and predetermined conclusions about CPS investigations all arose from extrajudicial sources rather than trial evidence.
The court found the trial judge’s conduct crossed constitutional lines. Beyond extensive adversarial questioning, the judge:
- Suggested L.B.’s recantation of prior allegations could be perjury
- Asked B.B.’s therapist about Munchausen syndrome as an explanation
- Made a rhetorical comment about how many guns were in his own vehicle
- Stated he was “[n]ot yet” charged with stalking, an implicit threat
- Told L.B. her accusations “have not been confirmed by anyone” based on lack of criminal prosecution
- Repeatedly challenged witnesses about why law enforcement hadn’t pursued charges
- Engaged in hostile cross-examination-style questioning of L.B. and her witnesses
The court emphasized: “The law contemplates that the trial judge shall maintain an attitude of impartiality throughout the trial.” This conduct was “in excess of any provocation or comment from the parties, the witnesses, or their counsel, and is indicative of the court’s bias against [L.B.]”
Factual Insufficiency: Evidence Didn’t Support the Findings
Even setting aside judicial bias, the appellate court found the evidence factually insufficient to support the trial court’s findings that L.B. couldn’t give first priority to children’s welfare, reach shared decisions with J.B., or encourage a positive relationship between children and J.B.
The only evidence in the record regarding L.B.’s alleged inability to encourage positive relationships or make shared decisions related to her family violence accusations. But the record showed L.B. and J.B. successfully cooperated in multiple ways: exchanging children at VCSO parking lot as ordered, modifying pickup times, placing children in private school together, and communicating about medications and appointments. L.B. actively requested J.B.’s involvement in B.B.’s therapy, he couldn’t participate due to the therapist’s policy against involving alleged perpetrators, not due to L.B.’s actions. L.B. testified multiple times she wanted her children to have a relationship with J.B. despite the alleged abuse.
J.B.’s testimony that L.B. was trying to turn children against him was conclusory without supporting evidence. There was no testimony of any unresolved conflict about children’s best interests. Meanwhile, substantial evidence supported that family violence occurred: physical evidence (photos of bruises, audio recordings, CPS reports), officer testimony about seeing bright red welts on B.B., B.B.’s statement on recording that his dad put poop in his mouth, CPS finding physical abuse was valid, and B.B.’s therapist’s testimony about trauma signs.
The court held: “Based on the record, the appointment of [J.B.] as SMC was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.”
The Significance of Recantation and Grand Jury No-Bills
The appellate court rejected the trial court’s heavy reliance on L.B.’s prior recantation and the grand jury no-bill. The court noted that recantation of family violence accusations is “not an uncommon phenomenon” in such cases. While prior false accusations are generally inadmissible in criminal cases to attack credibility, L.B. didn’t challenge the recantation’s admissibility and didn’t object at trial.
Regarding the grand jury no-bill, the court emphasized: “A Grand Jury’s no-bill is merely a finding that the specific evidence brought before the particular Grand Jury did not convince them to formally charge the accused with the offense alleged.” A no-bill doesn’t mean an incident didn’t occur or can’t qualify as family violence under the Family Code, which doesn’t require indictment or criminal conviction. While trial courts may consider such evidence, they cannot treat lack of criminal prosecution as dispositive proof that abuse didn’t occur.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorcing Couples
The case decision offers critical lessons for individuals involved in Dallas-area divorces with family violence allegations:
Judicial Impartiality Is a Constitutional Right: Even in bench trials where judges have broad discretion to question witnesses, there are limits. Judges must maintain impartiality and cannot inject personal opinions or extrajudicial knowledge into proceedings.
Family Violence Evidence Cannot Be Dismissed Due to Lack of Prosecution: The failure of law enforcement or prosecutors to pursue charges doesn’t mean abuse didn’t occur. Trial courts must evaluate the actual evidence presented, not simply defer to prosecutorial discretion decisions.
Recantations Are Common in Abuse Cases: Prior recantations of family violence allegations don’t automatically render current allegations incredible. Context matters, including why recantation occurred and whether the pattern fits known dynamics of domestic violence.
Original Custody Determinations Allow Broad Judicial Discretion: Unlike modification cases, trial courts in original custody proceedings can make any conservatorship finding in children’s best interests, regardless of specific pleadings, so long as conservatorship is at issue.
Strategic Considerations in Family Violence Cases
What we’ve learned from this case is the critical importance of comprehensive evidence presentation when family violence allegations are at issue in custody determinations. Different approaches might have included more systematic documentation of the parties’ successful cooperation in co-parenting decisions, clearer presentation of how the family violence allegations related (or didn’t relate) to L.B.’s ability to encourage healthy relationships with J.B., and more explicit requests for findings on specific Family Code Section 153.134(a) factors.
Alternative strategies could have addressed preservation of the judicial bias issue more proactively. While the appellate court allowed L.B. to raise bias for the first time on appeal due to its egregious nature, different preparation might have included contemporaneous objections to the trial judge’s comments, motions for recusal based on demonstrated bias during proceedings, or requests for specific findings explaining why certain evidence was credited or discredited.
For those working with a Dallas child custody lawyer, this case demonstrates why experienced counsel is essential when family violence allegations arise. Proper presentation requires not just introducing evidence of abuse, but also systematically rebutting any arguments that the abuse allegations somehow demonstrate inability to co-parent effectively or encourage healthy parent-child relationships.
Protecting Children and Parents in High-Conflict Custody Cases
Divorce cases involving allegations of domestic violence and child abuse present unique challenges requiring both vigorous advocacy and sensitivity to the dynamics of family violence. The Bryant decision makes clear that Texas courts must carefully evaluate evidence of abuse on its merits, not simply defer to decisions by law enforcement or prosecutors who may have different burdens of proof, different resources, or different priorities than family courts charged with protecting children’s best interests.
At our Dallas family law practice, we bring over 25 years of experience handling complex custody cases involving allegations of family violence, child abuse, and high-conflict co-parenting situations. We serve clients throughout the Dallas metropolitan area, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville.
We understand that cases involving family violence allegations require careful, strategic presentation of evidence combined with sensitivity to the trauma experienced by abuse survivors and their children. Whether you’re seeking to protect yourself and your children from an abusive spouse, or defending against allegations you believe are unfounded, we provide honest assessments grounded in realistic expectations based on current Texas law.
If you’re involved in divorce proceedings where family violence, domestic abuse, or child abuse allegations are at issue, we invite you to schedule a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation to discuss your specific circumstances. Our experienced team can evaluate the strength of your evidence, identify what additional documentation may be needed, and develop a strategic approach to protecting your children’s safety and your parental rights.
Don’t navigate the complexities of family violence allegations in custody cases alone. Contact us today to learn more about how our comprehensive divorce services can help you achieve outcomes that prioritize children’s safety and wellbeing. For a Dallas divorce attorney consultation focused on your specific custody and safety concerns, call our office or visit our contact page to begin the conversation about protecting your family.
Learn more about our approach to family law and how we can help you navigate custody disputes involving family violence allegations with both strategic precision and compassionate support. Whether you need guidance on child custody matters, child support issues, or comprehensive divorce advocacy, we’re here to provide the experienced representation you deserve as a trusted divorce attorney near me for Dallas-area residents facing these challenging circumstances.
