Texas Bar Journal • December 2024

Family Law

Written by Samantha E. Frazier and Tasha Wilson

In 2024, there were meaningful changes in family law. In one notable case, Baker v. Bizzle,¹ the appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment ruling that the postmortem decree was void due to lack of subject- matter jurisdiction. During the divorce trial, the court orally announced the divorce in open court but did not specify the grounds for the divorce or divide the marital estate. The court later emailed the parties the ruling, but the clerk was not copied and no written decree was filed. After one party died, the court signed the final divorce decree, which was later reversed by the appellate court and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Texas. The courts ruled that the trial court failed to render a complete judgment before the party’s death.

In In re R.J.G, R.J.G, and D.G.M.,² the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that strict compliance with a department service plan is not required for termination to be overcome. The case involved a mother who completed required services in a different manner than ordered but was still terminated. The Supreme Court of Texas emphasized that strict compliance with every detail of a service plan is not always required to avoid termination.

In State v. Loe,³ the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that parents’ rights to make decisions for their children are not absolute. The Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 14 (88R), effective September 1, 2023, prohibiting certain medical treatments for children related to gender transitioning. After a trial, the trial court found that the law likely violated the U.S. and Texas constitutions. The defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Texas. The court recognized that while parents have a fundamental right to make decisions, these rights are not absolute, and the state has the authority to regulate medical treatment for children.

In the case of Teneyck v. Teneyck,⁴ the court ruled in favor of the father’s argument for 50/50 possession. Despite the mother’s appeal, the court of appeals upheld the decision. The court considered the parents’ equal involvement in the children’s lives, their proximity to the children, and the father’s motivations for seeking 50/50 custody. This ruling could set a precedent for similar cases.

In cases challenging the enforceability of a mediated settlement agreement based on contract defenses such as illegality, fraud, duress, or coercion, the court must address the enforceability and applicable complaints and make necessary findings before moving forward. In In Re Montgomery,⁵ one party claimed they signed an MSA under physical, financial, and psychological duress. Without making findings, the trial court set the matter for trial. The court of appeals granted a mandamus because the trial court was obligated to make findings either enforcing the MSA or, if not, stating the grounds for setting it aside.

SAMANTHA E. FRAZIER is licensed in Texas and Utah. She is an associate attorney at Coil Law, where her primary practice area is family law in Houston, Dallas, and Salt Lake City. She is a member of the State Bar of Texas Family Law Section and the Texas Children’s Commission Parent Resource Workgroup.

TASHA WILSON is a partner in Smith Wilson & Dennis. She serves as an officer for the Houston Bar Association Family Law Section and Gulf Coast Family Law Specialists. Wilson is certified in family law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.