When a child turns 12, Texas law gives that child a voice in where they live. But a recent appellate decision shows that how that voice is heard, and whether it is preserved on the record, can decide a case long before anyone files an appeal.
Per the published opinion, in G. v. R., No. 03-25-00569-CV, 2026 WL 2339164 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2026, mem. op.), the Third Court of Appeals affirmed an order moving primary custody of two teenage boys from their mother to their father. The mother raised six issues on appeal. The court overruled every one.
The case centers on questions that come up in Dallas family courts every week:
- What happens when a judge interviews children privately in chambers?
- Who is responsible for making a record of that interview?
- Can a parent win on appeal if no one requested findings of fact?
- When will a court pause a custody change while an appeal is pending?
After more than 25 years as a Dallas divorce attorney practice in Texas family courts, we have seen how procedural details like these shape outcomes. This case offers a clear lesson: in custody litigation, the steps you take at trial often matter as much as the evidence you present.
Case Background: A 2012 Divorce and a 2024 Modification Suit
The parents, N.G. (Mother) and B.R. (Father), divorced in Bell County in 2012. They have two sons, born in 2009 and 2011.
The divorce decree named both parents joint managing conservators. Mother received the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence within Texas. Father received a standard possession order and was ordered to pay child support.
The Modification Petition
In June 2024, Father filed a petition to modify. By then, both boys were over 12. Father alleged that the children would tell the judge in chambers they wanted him to decide where they lived.
This matters because Texas Family Code § 156.101(a)(2) allows a court to modify custody if two things are true: the change is in the child’s best interest, and a child 12 or older has told the judge in chambers, under § 153.009, which parent they prefer. Father asked for the right to designate the boys’ residence and for Mother to pay child support.
While the case was pending, Father also filed a motion to enforce. The trial court found that Mother had violated the existing order by not releasing the children to him on six days in August 2024.
The Trial and the Ruling
The case was tried to an associate judge. Both parents testified, along with several family members and friends. After the hearing, the judge interviewed the boys in chambers. Neither party asked for those interviews to be recorded.
The associate judge granted the modification. Mother asked for a de novo hearing before the district judge, but that request was denied as untimely. The district judge adopted the ruling, keeping both parents as joint managing conservators but giving Father the right to designate the boys’ primary residence and ordering Mother to pay child support. Mother, representing herself, appealed.
Legal Analysis: How the Court of Appeals Reached Its Decision
The court reviewed the modification for an abuse of discretion, meaning it asked whether the trial court acted “without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” In re J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2021). Under Zeifman v. Michels, 212 S.W.3d 582, 587–88 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied), a trial court generally does not abuse its discretion if some substantive, probative evidence supports its decision.
That standard gives the trial judge a great deal of deference, and it explains much of what followed.
Who Must Request a Record of a Child’s In-Chambers Interview?
Short answer: the parties. Under Texas Family Code § 153.009(f), the court must make a record of an interview with a child 12 or older when a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem asks for one. The court may record it on its own motion, but it doesn’t have to.
Here, no one asked, so the trial court did not err.
The more significant holding came next. Mother argued that the missing record should be presumed harmful to her. The court held the opposite. An unrecorded interview is evidence, and under the missing-record presumption, an appellate court must presume the interview supported the trial court’s ruling. The court relied on U. v. M., 730 S.W.3d 704, 724–25 (Tex. App.—Austin 2026, pet. denied), which cited the Dallas Court of Appeals’ decision in In re C.J., 689 S.W.3d 417, 422–23 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2024, no pet.).
Because that line of cases runs through a Dallas decision, it carries particular weight in our local courts. An unrecorded interview can become a significant advantage for the parent who won at trial.
Are Findings of Fact Required in a Custody Modification?
Only if someone requests them. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296 allows any party in a bench trial to request written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Without a timely request, the trial court has no duty to make them.
Because no findings were requested, the appellate court implied every finding needed to support the judgment, as long as the evidence supported it.
Did the Order “Restrict” Mother’s Parental Rights?
Mother cited L. v. L., 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990), arguing that any restriction on her rights required findings of unfitness or harm. But L. involved a parent who lost managing conservatorship to grandparents. Here, Mother remained a joint managing conservator, so her rights were not restricted the way the mother’s were in L.. The “significant impairment” finding that case required did not apply.
Was Custody Changed Because of Comparative Wealth?
Mother argued that the ruling rested on Father’s greater financial resources. The record did include evidence about each parent’s home, job, and income. Father described a large home where each boy had his own room, a stable remote-work schedule that let him handle school pickups, and his research into nearby schools. He also testified that he would support the boys’ relationship with their mother.
Mother presented strong evidence too, including testimony that she ran a loving, structured household and that the boys had lived with her for thirteen years. The court recognized that both parents were devoted to their children.
But the court held that financial evidence was not the only basis for the ruling. The trial judge could have believed Father’s testimony that the boys had been asking to live with him for about two years. And again, the unrecorded interviews were presumed to support the best-interest finding. For anyone working with a Dallas child custody lawyer, this is a reminder that the best-interest analysis looks at the whole picture, not a single factor.
When Will a Court Suspend a Custody Order Pending Appeal?
Texas Family Code § 109.001(a)(6) allows a trial court to suspend a judgment during an appeal when needed to protect a child’s “safety and welfare.” M. v. M., 636 S.W.3d 679, 684 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, no pet.).
At the stay hearing, Mother’s witnesses spoke about her positive home environment, and one raised general concerns about possible emotional harm. When the court asked for evidence of a crisis that required a stay, no specific evidence was offered. The court of appeals held that denying the stay was not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Practical Implications
This decision follows a pattern Texas appellate courts apply consistently: the thinner the record, the more the appellate court defers to the trial judge. Requests that seem minor at trial can define what an appellate court is able to review. Examples include a court reporter for a child interview, written findings, or a timely de novo request.
The case also shows how quickly a modification can move once teenagers state a preference. A parent who has had primary custody for over a decade can see that arrangement change after a single bench trial.
For parents in the Dallas area, the question is not only “What will the judge decide?” but also “What will the record show if we need to challenge that decision?” A Dallas divorce attorney who plans for that question can request a court reporter, file post-trial requests on time, and gather specific evidence before a stay hearing, instead of trying to rebuild the record afterward. Families in Mesquite and across Dallas County face the same procedural rules.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorcing Couples
- Children 12 and older have a real voice. Their stated preference can support a custody modification under § 156.101(a)(2).
- Request a record of any in-chambers interview. Without one, the appellate court presumes the interview supported the ruling.
- Ask for findings of fact. Under Rule 296, findings are not automatic.
- Deadlines are strict. A request for a de novo hearing after an associate judge’s ruling must be filed within three working days under Family Code § 201.015.
- Follow existing orders. Enforcement findings can shape how a court views a parent.
- Custody changes affect support. A change in primary residence often creates new support obligations, so talk to a Dallas child support lawyer early.
Strategic Insights: What We’ve Learned From This Case
Different strategies might have included requesting a record of the children’s interviews, filing a timely Rule 296 request, and seeking a de novo hearing within the statutory window. At the stay stage, alternative approaches could have focused on specific, documented safety or welfare concerns rather than general testimony about the home environment.
An experienced Dallas family law attorney builds the appellate record from day one, because preserving issues at trial is what keeps options open afterward.
Schedule a Dallas Divorce Lawyer Consultation Today
If you are facing a custody modification, or your teenager has told you where they want to live, you deserve honest guidance about what Texas law allows and what outcome is realistic.
For more than 25 years, the Law Office of Michael P. Granata has provided strategic, compassionate representation with transparent communication and no false promises. As a Dallas divorce attorney serving Dallas, Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, we are the local answer when you search for a “divorce attorney near me.”
Call (214) 977-9050 to schedule your Dallas divorce lawyer consultation, or visit our blog for more Texas family law analysis. When your children’s future is on the line, choose a Dallas divorce attorney who prepares every case as if it may be reviewed on appeal.
