The case In the Interest of B.A.A. and B.A.A., Children (No. 05-23-00925-CV), decided by the Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, on June 9, 2025, addresses a dispute between two divorced parents, Father (Abdel Karim Abuhazi Rincones) and Mother (Yessica Cristina Vergara Zamora), over modifications to their child custody arrangement concerning their two young children, B.A.A. (aged 4 at the time of divorce) and B.A.A. (aged 2 at the time of divorce). The opinion, authored by Justice Emily A. Miskel, affirmed the trial court’s August 31, 2023, order granting Mother exclusive rights to designate the children’s primary residence, school, and educational decisions, rejecting Father’s claims of due process violations, judicial bias, and abuse of discretion. Below is a detailed summary of the case, tailored to approximately 1,045 words.
Background
Father and Mother, both originally from Venezuela and fluent in Spanish and English, divorced in January 2022 in Sachse, Texas, within the Garland Independent School District (ISD). They have two children, referred to as B.A.A. and B.A.A., who were four and two years old, respectively, at the time of the divorce. At the time of the modification order, Father remained in Sachse (Dallas County, Garland ISD), while Mother had moved to Wylie, Texas (Collin County, Wylie ISD), where she worked as a teacher. The agreed final divorce decree appointed both parents as joint managing conservators, with a 2-2-3 weekly possession schedule and alternating summer weeks. The decree allowed each parent to enroll the children in public schools within their respective attendance zones and restricted the children’s residence to Dallas County or contiguous counties as long as the “nonprimary parent” resided in those areas. However, the decree did not designate a primary parent, creating ambiguity.
A dispute arose when the parents disagreed on where their older child should attend kindergarten: Mother wanted the child to attend Groves Elementary in Wylie ISD, where she taught in a dual-language program, while Father preferred Sewell Elementary in Garland ISD, where the child had attended pre-kindergarten. This disagreement led to legal action. In April and July 2022, Father filed motions to enforce visitation and property division rights. In August 2022, Mother petitioned to modify the parent-child relationship, seeking exclusive rights to make educational decisions and choose the children’s school. Father countersued, requesting the same exclusive rights and adding a request to designate the children’s primary residence.
Procedural History
The case faced multiple judicial recusals. Initially filed in the 303rd District Court, the case was transferred to the 255th District Court after the first judge recused herself following Father’s February 2023 motion alleging bias. The second judge also recused herself after Father’s motion, and the case moved to the 330th District Court. Father filed a third recusal motion against the final judge, which was denied. After a series of pre-trial hearings, including a videoconference on January 30, 2023, and a hearing on May 1, 2023, the case was set for a bench trial on July 17, 2023.
On the trial morning, Father filed an unsworn motion for continuance, alleging Mother failed to provide exhibits and discovery, violating his due process rights. The trial judge declined to hear the motion, citing improper setting, and proceeded with the bench trial. Mother testified about Wylie ISD’s superior academic outcomes (91% of students on grade level vs. 78% in Garland ISD), smaller class sizes at Groves Elementary (15:1 vs. 24:1 at Sewell Elementary), and the benefits of its dual-language program, which aligned with the children’s bilingual background. She provided maps showing both parents lived within 15 minutes of both schools and noted a prior agreement with Father to enroll the older child at Groves, though he opposed the dual-language program. Father argued against the dual-language program, citing a preference for a diverse school environment, and expressed concerns that Mother’s control could destabilize the children’s schooling if she moved districts.
The trial court found a material and substantial change in circumstances since the divorce decree and ruled that granting Mother exclusive rights to designate the children’s primary residence, school, and educational decisions was in the children’s best interest. The court also clarified the geographic restriction to Dallas County and contiguous counties. Father appealed, raising six issues, and requested reversal, rendition of an order granting him the exclusive rights, and sanctions against the trial judge for alleged bias.
Appellate Issues and Rulings
- Due Process and Equal Protection (Issue 1): Father argued the bench trial violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to inadequate notice, improper denial of his continuance motion, and lack of a jury trial. The court rejected these claims:
- Notice: Father received notice of the July 17 trial at the May 1 hearing, and he failed to provide a record showing otherwise, not overcoming the presumption of proper notice.
- Continuance: The unswornmotion lacked an affidavit, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251, and Father did not demonstrate due diligence in seeking discovery or how Mother’s alleged failure to provide exhibits warranted a continuance. The denial aligned with time standards for family law cases.
- Jury Trial: Father did not request a jury trial or pay the required fee at least 30 days before trial, waiving his right. The issue was also unpreserveddue to lack of objection at trial.
- Primary Residence (Issue 2): Father claimed the trial court abused its discretion by granting Mother the right to designate the primary residence without sufficient evidence or analysis of the children’s best interest. The court disagreed, noting the divorce decree’s ambiguity (no primary parent designated) caused conflicts. Father’s counter-petition raised the issue, providing notice, and evidence supported the modification as stabilizing the children’s residence within the geographic restriction.
- Educational Decisions (Issue 3): Father argued the order granting Mother exclusive educational decision-making rights was overbroadand violated his parental rights. The court found sufficient evidence, including Mother’s testimony on the dual-language program’s benefits, and noted the order preserved Father’s rights to access educational records and participate in school activities.
- School Designation (Issue 4): Father contended the order allowing Mother to choose the school disregarded the children’s stability and evaded geographic restrictions. The court upheld the decision, citing Wylie ISD’sacademic advantages and proximity, and Mother’s compliance with the geographic restriction.
- Reporter’s Record (Issue 5): Father alleged inaccuracies in the trial record (e.g., substituted testimony, incorrect use of “visitation” instead of “education”). The court found these claims inadequately briefed, as Father did not specify missing testimony or demonstrate harm. He also failed to seek corrections in the trial court.
- Judicial Bias (Issue 6): Father claimed the trial judge was biased, citing unfavorable rulings and procedural decisions. The court found no evidence of bias, as judicial rulings alone do not demonstrate partiality, and the judge adhered to proper procedures.
Evidence and Legal Standard
The trial court’s decision rested on evidence of changed circumstances (e.g., parental conflicts over schooling and the decree’s ambiguity) and the children’s best interest, supported by Mother’s testimony and exhibits on Wylie ISD’s advantages. The court applied Texas Family Code § 156.101, requiring a material and substantial change and best-interest finding for modifications. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion, affirming the trial court’s judgment due to sufficient evidence and no arbitrary or unreasonable actions. The trial court, as the sole judge of witness credibility, was given wide latitude in its fact-driven conservatorship decision.
Outcome
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s August 31, 2023, order, withdrawing its prior May 19, 2025, opinion and judgment. Father’s due process, abuse of discretion, and bias claims were overruled, and his request for sanctions was denied. Mother was awarded appeal costs. The decision underscores the court’s deference to trial courts in custody matters and the importance of procedural compliance in raising appellate issues.
