Introduction: Understanding When Joint Custody Isn’t in the Best Interest of Your Children
When you’re facing a Dallas divorce, the question of custody often feels like the most important battle ahead. Many divorcing parents assume that joint managing conservatorship, where both parents share decision-making power, is the default outcome. However, a recent Texas appellate court decision demonstrates that a trusted Dallas divorce attorney must understand the circumstances when the courts will appoint sole managing conservatorship, even when statutory law presumes joint custody is preferable.
In G. v. H., decided by the Court of Appeals of Texas in Austin on October 24, 2025, the court affirmed a trial judge’s decision to award sole managing conservatorship to one parent despite evidence of family violence and mental health concerns affecting the other. Per the published opinion, this case provides crucial insights into how Texas courts actually apply custody law when parental fitness and the children’s safety are at stake. For Dallas-area residents, including those in Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, and Grand Prairie, this case illustrates the complex factors that influence custody decisions far beyond simply assuming “both parents are equally fit.”
The appellate court’s decision reminds us that while Texas law creates a rebuttable presumption favoring joint managing conservatorship, evidence of family violence, inability to co-parent effectively, and failure to maintain consistent contact with children can overcome that presumption. If you’re considering divorce or currently navigating custody disputes in the Dallas metropolitan area, understanding these legal principles could significantly impact the outcome for your family.
Case Background: How a Custody Dispute Escalated from Joint to Sole Conservatorship
G.R. and D.H. (using initials to protect privacy) married in October 2019 and had two children together, a daughter and a son. By the time trial occurred in October 2024, their daughter was nearly five years old and their son was three. The parents separated in September 2022, and the custody conflict that followed illustrates the complexities that often emerge in Dallas family law disputes.
D.H. filed for divorce in April 2023, and his initial petition included significant allegations. He described an assault by G.R. that occurred in November 2022 at his mother’s residence, with the children present, ages one and three at the time. According to court records, G.R. arrived at 6:00 a.m., banged on the door until she cracked the glass, and then struck D.H. repeatedly with her elbow and threw items at him, including a clay lawn decoration that caused bleeding. This incident resulted in criminal assault charges. In the same petition, D.H. also described G.R.’s attempt in April 2023 to remove the children from daycare against the facility’s policies, with the daycare reporting that G.R. became “loud and rude” when they refused to release the children.
Perhaps most alarming to the trial judge was the text message G.R. sent to D.H.’s mother the day after the daycare incident. In the message, G.R. wrote: “Bitch you and yo family gone get shot up ho[]. Now ya’ll got prices on your heads better watch out bitch. Your son is dead. Your going to die bitch and your husband will die all of you are walking dead.”
The trial court initially appointed the parties as temporary joint managing conservators in May 2023, with D.H. designated as the conservator with the exclusive right to determine the children’s primary residence. However, as additional concerns emerged about G.R.’s behavior and mental health, the court modified the temporary orders in November 2023. G.R. agreed to what became known as the “Agreed Further Temporary Orders,” which designated D.H. as temporary sole managing conservator and G.R. as temporary possessory conservator. Importantly, these agreed orders required G.R. to complete psychological evaluation within 60 days and established that her visitation would be supervised by a Domestic Relations Office provider.
By the time the case went to final trial in October 2024, neither side disputed the basic facts, but their interpretations of those facts differed dramatically. D.H. argued that the evidence clearly demonstrated G.R.’s inability to safely parent the children and maintain appropriate co-parental communication. G.R. contended that while she had made mistakes, a joint custody arrangement with appropriate safeguards would better serve the children’s relationship with both parents.
Legal Analysis: How Texas Courts Apply the Family Violence Standard to Conservatorship Decisions
Understanding the legal framework governing this case requires examining three distinct but related areas of Texas family law. Each principle contributed to the appellate court’s decision to affirm sole managing conservatorship for D.H.
The Rebuttable Presumption Favoring Joint Conservatorship
Texas Family Code § 153.131(b) establishes that there is “a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in the best interest of the child.” This is a significant starting point, meaning the law assumes joint custody is preferable unless one parent can present sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption. However, the statute also provides several specific circumstances where courts should consider departing from this default position.
The trial court initially honored this presumption by proposing joint managing conservatorship. However, the court emphasized to G.R.: “I’m granting you joint managing conservator because I think that’s in the best interest of your kids, and because your kids need you in their life, but there is going to be a long period of time before you have kind of regular visits that you probably are looking for.” This language shows the judge was attempting to balance the statutory presumption with other concerns about G.R.’s fitness and the children’s safety. What changed during trial was G.R.’s own conduct in the courtroom, which the judge viewed as additional evidence that joint decision-making between these parents would be impossible.
The Family Violence Statute and Mandatory Judicial Consideration
Texas Family Code § 153.004(a) requires courts to “consider evidence of the intentional use of abusive physical force, or evidence of sexual abuse, by a party directed against the party’s spouse, a parent of the child, or any person younger than 18 years of age committed within a two-year period preceding the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit.” This statute doesn’t automatically require courts to award sole conservatorship when family violence is present, but it absolutely requires courts to consider that evidence when making custody determinations.
In the G. case, the appellate court identified three separate incidents of physical violence by G.R. against D.H.: the November 2022 assault at his mother’s home where she struck him with her elbow and threw items at him; a July 15, 2022 incident with bite marks and scratch marks documented in photographs; and a September 2023 incident where she hit him in the face in front of their son and D.H.’s teenage nephew at the children’s daycare. The appellate court noted that G.R. characterized the November 2022 incident as “minor” and suggested it shouldn’t be considered because D.H. had later bonded her out of jail. However, the court found this argument insufficient because D.H. testified that he bonded her out solely “for the fact that, you know, the children”, not because he believed the incident was truly minor.
For Dallas divorce lawyer professionals and clients in our service areas, including Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, this principle is crucial: judges have significant discretion in weighing family violence evidence, and attempting to minimize such incidents usually fails if corroborating evidence exists. Photographs, text messages, criminal charges, and witness testimony often speak louder than a party’s characterization of events as “isolated” or “minor.”
The Practical Ability to Co-Parent and Communicate About Children’s Needs
Perhaps the most important factor in this case, and one that often determines custody outcomes in Dallas child custody disputes, is the trial court’s conclusion that G.R. and D.H. fundamentally could not effectively co-parent. The guardian ad litem, S.B., testified about G.R.’s refusal to use the court-ordered AppClose communication app consistently (she deleted it three times), her threatening phone calls and text messages to D.H., and most significantly, G.R.’s unwillingness to work cooperatively on decisions about the children’s daycare.
The trial judge emphasized this factor when stating: “These two parents have to communicate because these children have to grow up under court orders and so if Ms. G. cannot provide the courtesy of a 24-hour notice that she’s going to exercise visitation, then she does not get the visitation.” This is not a discretionary preference for judges, Texas Family Code § 153.134(a) specifically lists “the ability of the parents to give first priority to the welfare of the child and reach shared decisions in the child’s best interest” as a factor courts must consider when appointing joint managing conservators.
G.R.’s behavior during trial actually illustrated her inability to make shared decisions. When she disagreed with the judge’s rulings on various custody provisions, she “repeatedly question[ed] and challenge[d] the trial court’s rulings” and became “argumentative with the court.” Most tellingly, G.R. eventually walked out of the courtroom before the trial concluded. The judge documented this: “I’m going to note for the record Ms. G. has walked out of the courtroom, and I am, I think given the fact Ms. G. has left the courtroom, I don’t see why the order awarding sole managing conservatorship for Mr. H. should not be granted.”
How Courts Weigh Failure to Exercise Visitation and Follow Court Orders
Another critical principle highlighted in this case involves what happens when a parent doesn’t regularly exercise possession of their children. Between May and September 2023, while both parents held temporary joint conservatorship and G.R. was awarded possession under a standard possession order (conditioned on her living with her parents), G.R. saw the children only three times. After agreeing to supervised visitation beginning in October 2023, G.R. completed only four supervised three-hour visits through December 23, 2023, and then stopped engaging with the supervised visitation process entirely.
B. testified that the purpose of supervised visitation was “to assess her interactions with the children after she re-established her relationship with them.” However, G.R.’s inconsistency prevented this assessment from occurring. Worse, during the four supervised visits she did complete, G.R. demonstrated problematic parenting behaviors: she didn’t bring required materials (like diaper bags), arrived late to visits, attempted to change visit locations mid-arrangement, left two visits to go shopping (leaving the children with family members present), and was absent for the first hour and a half of one visit to get a cake.
When supervised visitation became difficult or frustrating, G.R. took action that courts uniformly view negatively: she stopped participating. By mid-August 2023, she emailed B. stating she had “deleted AppClose” and was “not going along with any of this im done.” She also told B. she was “going to get her children and keep them, and that she didn’t care what anyone has to say anymore.” This threatened interference with the other parent’s custody rights, combined with her failure to maintain consistent contact with the children, demonstrated to the court that G.R. was not making the children’s best interest her priority.
Mental Health Concerns and the Psychological Evaluation Requirement
A particularly important element in this case involved G.R.’s mental health. H. testified that before they met, G.R. had attempted suicide by overdosing on medication during postpartum depression with her older child. He also stated that G.R. once grabbed a gun and threatened suicide in his presence. When the trial court recommended psychological evaluation, B. noted that while G.R. had been prescribed medication for depression, she reported that the medication “made her feel suicidal so she stopped taking it.”
Most significantly, despite agreeing in the November 2023 temporary orders to complete a psychological evaluation within 60 days, G.R. never completed this evaluation. She failed to follow through on this court order, even after B. provided names of alternative providers specifically to reduce cost concerns. This failure to comply with court orders, combined with evidence of untreated mental health issues affecting her ability to parent consistently, led the appellate court to affirm the trial judge’s decision to require psychological evaluation as a condition of the step-up possession plan.
For families in Dallas considering family law representation, this illustrates a critical point: even the best divorce attorney in Dallas cannot help you if you refuse to comply with court orders. The courts view non-compliance as evidence of both disrespect for judicial authority and disregard for your children’s best interests.
Key Takeaways: What This Case Means for Your Dallas Family Law Situation
If you’re a Dallas-area resident considering divorce or currently involved in custody disputes, several principles from this case apply to your situation:
First, family violence matters enormously. If you’re experiencing domestic violence, document it carefully through photographs, police reports, medical records, and witness statements. If you’re the accused party, understand that characterizing incidents as “minor” usually fails if objective evidence contradicts you. A Dallas family law attorney can help you present family violence evidence most effectively, or, if you’re the accused party, can help develop mitigation strategies that address the court’s legitimate safety concerns.
Second, consistency in exercising custody matters. Courts assume that parents who don’t regularly see their children either lack commitment to them or face barriers (like substance abuse, mental illness, or antagonism with the other parent) that prevent regular contact. If you’re rebuilding a relationship with your children after separation, consistent exercise of your possession time is crucial evidence of genuine commitment.
Third, ability to co-parent effectively directly impacts custody decisions. Even if you have legitimate disagreements with the other parent, courts expect you to maintain professional communication through court-ordered channels, respect the other parent’s time with the children, and collaborate on major decisions. Antagonism, refusal to use communication tools, or threats to interfere with the other parent’s custody will persuade courts that joint conservatorship won’t work.
Fourth, compliance with court orders is non-negotiable. Whether you’re ordered to complete psychological evaluation, attend parenting classes, or appear for supervised visitation at specific times, failure to comply is viewed as disrespect for the court and, more importantly, as evidence you won’t prioritize your children’s best interests once the divorce concludes.
Strategic Insights: How Experienced Representation Affects Outcomes
While this case ultimately resulted in appellate affirmation of the trial court’s judgment, different strategies might have been available to G.R. An experienced Dallas child custody lawyer would likely have advised several alternative approaches: early engagement with the recommended psychological evaluation to demonstrate willingness to address mental health concerns; consistent exercise of even limited visitation time to establish genuine commitment to the parent-child relationship; maintenance of professional communication despite frustration; or perhaps negotiation with D.H. regarding a modified custody arrangement rather than contesting sole conservatorship at trial.
The trial court’s initial willingness to appoint joint managing conservators shows that G.R. had an opportunity to succeed if she had approached the case differently. Her argumentativeness in court and ultimate departure from the courtroom transformed what might have been a joint custody outcome into sole conservatorship for D.H. Early consultation with a divorce lawyer in Dallas could have prevented this strategic misstep.
Protecting Your Family’s Future: Contact an Experienced Dallas Divorce Attorney Today
If you’re facing custody disputes in Dallas, whether you’re concerned about the other parent’s fitness, worried about your own position, or simply uncertain about how to protect your relationship with your children, professional guidance makes an enormous difference. With over 25 years of family law experience serving Dallas and the surrounding areas including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, we’ve guided hundreds of families through custody disputes similar to the issues raised in the G. case.
Rather than making promises about outcomes, we provide honest assessments of your situation combined with strategic, compassionate representation that balances your goals with realistic understanding of what courts will likely do. We understand that custody disputes involve your most valuable relationships, your children, and we approach every case with the seriousness it deserves.
Whether you need consultation on an initial custody arrangement, representation in modification disputes, or guidance on custody enforcement, a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation with our firm provides clarity about your rights, realistic outcomes, and strategic options. We serve families throughout the Dallas metropolitan area who want transparent communication, evidence-based strategy, and compassionate representation from attorneys who understand both the law and the emotional stakes involved.
