Father can't rent out children's room when they're with Mother.
Not a child welfare case but an interesting discussion on a nontraditional permanent injunction in a SAPCR. Also, worth noting that the parent was enjoined from activities occurring outside the children’s presence.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an order which enjoined Father from renting out Children’s rooms when they are not staying with him. Gardner v. McKenney, No. 03-21-00130-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 15, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), available at https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=67febc2e-c651-4866-938f-4514c367d5a1&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=9583967e-276f-455b-9fb6-ec83246d93ab.
Parents originally had been appointed joint managing conservators, with Mother having the right to designate residence. Mother filed a motion to modify, which included a request that the trial court enjoin Father from renting out the children’s bedrooms as short-term rentals.
Father’s trips with the Children did not always go well, with Father giving daughter the “middle finger” on an airplane while mouthing the f-word to her. Eventually Father took Son on two trips without Daughter. I'm not sure how this is relevant, except maybe to show the extent to which Father might or might not be empathetic to Daughter's concerns.
At one point Mother discovered that Daughter had taken “a bunch of pills,” and soon thereafter was admitted to a “partial hospitalization program,” where she was still involved at the time of trial.
Father supported Daughter’s involvement in this program, but opposed continuing with her individual therapist [always a risky trial strategy].
Father admitted that he rented out the rooms for nearly 100 times in a single year, apparently with Airbnb. Mother testified that she wanted the injunction because: (1) she disagreed with strangers sleeping in her children’s beds; (2) there were no locks on the closets or cabinets in the rooms; (3) the COVID pandemic was ongoing; (4) strangers might leave behind cameras [?!] or take things from the bedrooms; and (5) Daughter had noticed that her things had been “rifled through.”
The therapist testified that she believes Daughter suffers from a deep level of insecurity, which makes her dependent on external sources for approval and sometimes leads to attention-seeking behavior and self-harm.
The court of appeals noted that Daughter’s estrangement from Father and her suicide attempt occurred the year Father was renting out her room.
The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the injunction. Father testified that the room rentals didn’t bother Children, that they were welcome to lock up anything in his closet that they did not want left out, and that they enjoyed the money he gave them for renting out the rooms. However, the appellate court held that the trial court was entitled to disbelieve this testimony. They weren’t happy with the idea that the Children would have to remember to lock things up every time they left his home. The trial court also could have inferred that the children’s awareness of the litigation between their parents may have constrained them from telling Father how they felt about his renting out their rooms. [This feels like a concept worth remembering.]
The court of appeals did not address Father’s claim that the trial court did not have authority to enjoin him from renting out the Children’s bedrooms when they were not in his possession. He apparently did not preserve this claim at the trial level. The Austin Court of Appeals cites King v. Lyons, 457 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). That case is an excellent discussion on the scope of a trial court’s ability to grant injunctive relief, especially when not pled by either party.
I also feel like I should add that in the era we are living in when the judiciary is strongly female (especially in Democratically controlled counties), blaming your daughter’s acting out on her “hormones” is … a choice.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing an order which enjoined Father from renting out Children’s rooms when they are not staying with him. Gardner v. McKenney, No. 03-21-00130-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 15, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), available at https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=67febc2e-c651-4866-938f-4514c367d5a1&coa=coa03&DT=Opinion&MediaID=9583967e-276f-455b-9fb6-ec83246d93ab.
Parents originally had been appointed joint managing conservators, with Mother having the right to designate residence. Mother filed a motion to modify, which included a request that the trial court enjoin Father from renting out the children’s bedrooms as short-term rentals.
Father’s trips with the Children did not always go well, with Father giving daughter the “middle finger” on an airplane while mouthing the f-word to her. Eventually Father took Son on two trips without Daughter. I'm not sure how this is relevant, except maybe to show the extent to which Father might or might not be empathetic to Daughter's concerns.
At one point Mother discovered that Daughter had taken “a bunch of pills,” and soon thereafter was admitted to a “partial hospitalization program,” where she was still involved at the time of trial.
Father supported Daughter’s involvement in this program, but opposed continuing with her individual therapist [always a risky trial strategy].
Father admitted that he rented out the rooms for nearly 100 times in a single year, apparently with Airbnb. Mother testified that she wanted the injunction because: (1) she disagreed with strangers sleeping in her children’s beds; (2) there were no locks on the closets or cabinets in the rooms; (3) the COVID pandemic was ongoing; (4) strangers might leave behind cameras [?!] or take things from the bedrooms; and (5) Daughter had noticed that her things had been “rifled through.”
The therapist testified that she believes Daughter suffers from a deep level of insecurity, which makes her dependent on external sources for approval and sometimes leads to attention-seeking behavior and self-harm.
The court of appeals noted that Daughter’s estrangement from Father and her suicide attempt occurred the year Father was renting out her room.
The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the injunction. Father testified that the room rentals didn’t bother Children, that they were welcome to lock up anything in his closet that they did not want left out, and that they enjoyed the money he gave them for renting out the rooms. However, the appellate court held that the trial court was entitled to disbelieve this testimony. They weren’t happy with the idea that the Children would have to remember to lock things up every time they left his home. The trial court also could have inferred that the children’s awareness of the litigation between their parents may have constrained them from telling Father how they felt about his renting out their rooms. [This feels like a concept worth remembering.]
The court of appeals did not address Father’s claim that the trial court did not have authority to enjoin him from renting out the Children’s bedrooms when they were not in his possession. He apparently did not preserve this claim at the trial level. The Austin Court of Appeals cites King v. Lyons, 457 S.W.3d 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.). That case is an excellent discussion on the scope of a trial court’s ability to grant injunctive relief, especially when not pled by either party.
I also feel like I should add that in the era we are living in when the judiciary is strongly female (especially in Democratically controlled counties), blaming your daughter’s acting out on her “hormones” is … a choice.
Comments
Post a Comment