Case Alert: IN THE INTEREST OF L.K.M. AND C.C.M., CHILDREN (Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo)
By June 14, 2025 Posted in Industry News Tagged in Child Custody Share
The case involves an appeal by Amy Axtell (Mother) against a final order modifying conservatorship and possession of her two children with Jason Paul Miller (Father). The trial court granted Father primary custody and exclusive decision-making rights, while ordering Mother to undergo psychological evaluations and limiting her to a step-up possession schedule. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo, affirmed the trial court's decision.
Mother and Father had a relationship spanning over twenty years, during which Mother falsely claimed to be a cardiothoracic surgeon. They had two children, L.K.M. and C.C.M. Father filed for divorce in May 2020, and upon discovering Mother's deception, the parties signed a mediated settlement agreement in August 2020. The divorce decree, rendered in January 2021, appointed the parties as joint managing conservators, with Mother having the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence.
By fall 2020, Father noticed the children's behavior deteriorating during exchanges with Mother. Despite attempts at counseling, the parties struggled with communication and co-parenting. In March 2022, Father filed for modification, seeking exclusive rights to designate the children's primary residence and make medical, psychological, and educational decisions. The modification petition was driven by the breakdown of Father's relationship with his daughters, concerns about Mother's dishonesty, and co-parenting difficulties.
Dr. Kelley A. Baker conducted a child custody evaluation, finding no support for Mother's concerns about Father but supporting Father's concerns about Mother's negative impact on the children's relationship with him. Dr. Baker documented Mother's continued false representations and concluded that her behavior could place the children in unsafe situations. Dr. Baker recommended that Father be awarded exclusive decision-making rights and that Mother undergo evaluations and refrain from making false statements.
Dr. Baker In June 2022, the parties agreed to a child custody evaluation by Dr. Kelley A. Baker, who also served as the children’s guardian ad litem. Dr. Baker conducted a comprehensive evaluation that included reviewing over one hundred documents, interviewing at least twenty collateral witnesses, and making home visits to both parents. As part of her investigation, Dr. Baker asked each party to identify their concerns about the other parent’s ability to parent and their relationships with the children. Father’s concerns included that Mother engaged in behaviors that negatively impacted his relationship with the children, misrepresented information about the children’s health, and continued her pattern of dishonesty in ways that could endanger the children. Mother’s concerns about Father included allegations that he did not properly feed or bathe the children, did not emotionally engage with them, and exercised poor judgment when they were sick. Dr. Baker found no support for any of Mother’s concerns about Father, opining that Mother’s alleged concerns were not grounded in reality. Dr. Baker testified this was concerning because Mother’s distorted thinking puts the children at risk—she may perceive danger when none exists, believe she needs to protect the children when unnecessary, and make irrational decisions limiting their contact with Father. In contrast, Dr. Baker found evidence supporting Father’s concerns that Mother had engaged in behaviors that negatively affected his relationship with the children: speaking negatively of Father to the children; withholding educational and medical information from Father; limiting or interfering with Father’s time with the children; sharing inappropriate information about the marriage and legal matters with the children; and causing the children to choose or feel guilty for loving Father. These decisions have the potential to place the children in dangerous situations when Mother fails to convey medical information correctly or refuses to follow doctors’ orders. Dr. Baker also documented Mother’s continued false representations during the lawsuit. Although Mother told Dr. Baker that her parents actually knew she had not, in fact, graduated from medical school, Dr. Baker discovered through speaking with Mother’s parents that they still believed she was a doctor. Dr. Baker testified this was significant because it evidenced Mother’s continued pattern of making false statements after the divorce was rendered. Mother also lied to Dr. Baker, claiming she had an undergraduate degree from the University of Utah. Dr. Baker concluded this pattern affected Mother’s decision-making and judgment, with the potential of placing the children in unsafe situations. Dr. Baker observed patterns in Mother’s interactions with professionals. Mother attempted to cease family therapy because she had not been copied on a scheduling email. Following depositions, Mother attempted to have the children’s therapist (Ryon) removed from the case. When that therapist recommended one of the children begin weekly therapy sessions due to serious transitional problems, Mother disagreed. Dr. Baker also investigated the parties’ communication patterns as part of her evaluation. When Baker asked Mother how she wanted to communicate with Father, Mother responded that she does not like communicating with him because his communications are too frequent, high conflict, accusatory, benefit no one, and are unconstructive. Additional testimony was presented regarding communication patterns. Father testified that Mother sometimes waited weeks or a month to respond to messages on Our Family Wizard, an online platform designed for divorced parents to coordinate scheduling and communicate about their children. Mother testified that she didn’t like Our Family Wizard and was apprehensive toward it because she felt that Father had unilaterally chosen to use it. In a September 2023 report that was admitted into evidence, Dr. Baker made eleven specific recommendations to the court, including that the parties remain joint managing conservators but with Father awarded exclusive decision-making rights in medical, educational, and psychological decisions and the exclusive right to establish the primary residence of the children. She recommended Mother be awarded a standard possession order with Wednesday evening possession during the school term, with consideration for expanding Mother’s possession schedule after one year if she met certain conditions, including meeting with a neuropsychologist and psychiatrist and refraining from making false statements about the children’s medical conditions or negatively impacting their perception of Father. Dr. Baker also recommended that Father identify specific medical providers and that Mother be required to take the children only to those providers; that Mother immediately notify Father if the children require medical attention while in her care; that Mother not be allowed to take children from school for medical appointments without Father’s consent; and that Father manage all extracurricular activities in consultation with Mother. Dr. Baker supported her recommendations with testimony that she “believe[d] that the children’s safety and their health are at risk until [Mother] gets a better understanding of what’s going on for her and some treatment.” Baker expressed concern there had been a lot of negative influence on the children in regards to Father, putting their relationship with Father at risk.”
Dr. Alissa Sherry conducted psychological testing, finding that Mother had severe issues with perception and thinking, fitting the criteria for pathological lying. Dr. Sherry recommended that Mother continue therapy and meet with a neuropsychologist and psychiatrist. Dr. Sherry found Father's assessment normative, with no evidence of behavior outside the norm of a loving parent.
Mother attempted to counter these findings with testimony from Dr. Stephen Thorne and her therapist, Pamela Krejci. Dr. Thorne criticized the use of "pathological lying" but conceded that he might have reached similar conclusions with the same information. Krejci testified she had no concerns about Mother's parenting but had limited knowledge of the case.
The trial court found Dr. Baker and Dr. Sherry credible, while finding Mother's testimony not credible. The court awarded Father exclusive rights to designate the children's primary residence and make decisions, while ordering Mother to undergo evaluations and awarding her a step-up possession schedule. The court found that Mother's pattern of lying impacted her credibility and the children's best interests.
Mother presented ten issues on appeal, challenging the trial court's discretion in modifying possession, conservatorship, and access. The court found that Mother's deceptions extended beyond her false claim of being a surgeon, impacting her credibility and the children's safety. Dr. Sherry and Dr. Baker's findings supported the trial court's decision, and the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's orders.
The trial court's decision to implement a two-phase step-up possession schedule was based on expert recommendations and aimed at protecting the children's best interests. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's modification of the decree's possession requirements.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's final order, overruling each of Mother's issues on appeal.