JUDGE 246 COURT JUDGE AIRED CONCERN AND ASKED FATHER IF HE IS GOING TO BLOG ON HIM.

COURT 246 JUDGE FROM HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS ASK A FATHER IF HE WAS GOING TO BLOG ON A COURT PROCEEDING HELD 12/30/2016. In a recent divorce final, one of the exhibits presented to the judge by RESPONDENTS was a collection of blogs from the PETITIONER. Noticeable was, the package consisted of dozens of blogs. 

Those critical of court 246 were arranged with the caption Family Court 246 displayed for the judge to see.

True to the attorneys expectation and in spite of the petitioners objection for relevance the Judge took the exhibit and began what seem to be a lengthy read. 

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3016841/275726129/stock-photo-family-law-275726129.jpg When we avoid exposing offensive acts committed by those in power many suffer/ 

When the Catholic Church rouge priests abuse so many of our youth, many with knowledge covered those acts for too long. Today family courts have been mutilating families for many years. Their actions have been covered for too long.
p
The longer we as a society turn a blind  eye on evil  affecting children the longer the suffering of our children persists needlessly. The need exist to expose situations when the court determined marriage failures on adultery and cruelty when there was no proof but the court needing to justify its opinion uses far fetch excuses that are laughable because persons living in these communities know the truth. 

For a court to accuse a father living with his children abandoned by the mother for more than two years, at age 40 living in an apartment, with a history of  open adultery she calls flings since 2009 is either ignorance or mischievous family court cannot pick and choose evidence to make its case. If one parent boosts of romantic dinners with her male partner then she got laid, it sounds like adultery and it is not the role of the court to determine what she means. We can either be a Country of chaos or a country of law. Yet we cannot allow judicial institutions to determine which they are going to accept.

Heard are views expressed by persons who have had experience with court 246 Harris county Texas. Views expressed are not edited neither solicited.

I AM NOT AUTHENTICATING OR POSTING THIS ARTICLE AS A DOCUMENT OF FACT. There are thousands of people who know about corrupt judges who are more than willing to speak out. Some of them are in active case but because of morals are not willing to be quiet. My story of Judge Prine and Ramos are so disturbing that I will reproduce my entire experience on line and a number of news forums. I am not an attorney and so not qualifies to give legal advise.

 1 Prine is not a fair and just judge. He does not listen to the whole case He proves that money talks in Texas. He does not approve of same sex relationships ( that case made national news). He is willing to give children to a so called father that never really wanted kids.

A man that emotionally abused with a moderate amount physical abuse. This man was given 2/3 of my daughter salary to buy electronic stuff for the kids instead of clothes. In the last three months I have had to pay for clothes and hair cuts for the boys and my daughter can do things with the boys to the tune of$1000. 2 Do I want this man in office ?

 Hell no! My daughter is a bad housekeeper yes! Did she deserve to loose her kids? No. The boys will not even spend time with her because she made them do homework work on the STAAR test. I made the mistake of treating them to the rodeo when completed the sample test. Their so called father does not make them do homework. They are both failing in school. I actively campaign against Prine. I want justice for all not just the rich. 3 This father lied in court under oath and got away with it.

He shund the one child for 6 years. He protected one son during IKe and cared less about the other son or his wife. Since the boys have pulled away from her these last weeks I am sure that they have been threaten by there father. They are afraid of him. It is so out of character for them. 4 I want to actively campaign against this man. He needs to be out of office. It is obvious he would like to see women back in the Victorian era with no rights.

What is this country coming to. It is not an American for all but for the rich and it non moralistic lawyers. 5 Sadly, this man has moved from Associate Judge of Judge Dean, a corrupt judge, to District Judge of the 246th Court. He has appointed Chelsie Ramos as his associate judge as a political favor. She has no experience in family law, and looking at the tro's that she signed, doesn't care to spend any time learning family law.

Her sole accomplishment for this job was being married to a former family law associate judge. Now the list has come out of the judges that refuse to appoint attorneys from a generally-accepted list, accepted by all but 4 courts. So 8 courts (9 if you include the CPS court - that the courts didn't need but which was set up so Judge Farr could take credit for it) are ok with the qualifications of the attorney list, and 4 aren't. And those 4 are.....this judge, the judge he worked under, and 2 other dishonorable judges (Alicia Franklin York and Jim Lombardino). These 4 judges continue to thank campaign donors with appointments and high-paid vouchers.

Did it ever bother anybody that, as an associate judge, this judge took off more time that the judge that appointed him? And that they took off at the same time so, despite that you, the tax payer, paid 2 judges to cover one court, they regularly left that court without a single judge for weeks at a time, and anytime a political event was scheduled? It's past time to stop covering up for the good-old-boy system in Harris County Family Courts. The corruption has been reported since the 1990's, and the only judge any one ran out of the office was the one that rebuked these people. These are the unedited views of persons that have come into contact with this judge for some reason or another they are not satisfied with the administration of their cases.

I encourage any one who has  experience good or bad to share  relating to family court experience so we can influence family court in the direction beneficial for our children.

UN REAL DIS ORGANIZED FAMILY COURT 246 HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS WHERE ANY THING GOES

I have experienced cases in court 246 for one year. There are attorneys that are late more that 95% of the time. There is often confusion between the judge and the clerk. One saying the attorney has not called the other saying he is in another court. On one occasion the judge said he was in Fort Bend. Fort Bend has a very friendly web site for tracking cases and attorney activity Using my tablet I checked this attorney docket only to find he had two cases active for the month none were scheduled for that week.

 The court simply grant resets to attorneys but punish others harshly for lateness. Court 246 ignored a call from a participant who was in the building and hurried a hearing with the same attorney with a history of lateness in order to rule in his favor. From 16 court appearances this attorney was late 12 tines more than 3 hours, early twice once when he knew the other party was out of State the other when he had a motion to nab a 10 year old refusing to live with her mother. 

On this occasion the court held a hearing even it opposing attorney informed the court that he was in another court and would arrive by 10. The court did not wait for ten oclock stating the other normally late attorney was present so she conducted the hearing. Court 246 has serious integrity problems and is in need of procedural review and investigation. Below is their procedures, just fiction not worth the paper it is written on.

REMEMBER ITS ABOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. 2 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 246TH Family District Court, Harris County, TX Judge Charley Prine 1. Docket Call M-F 8:00 am – 9:00 am Uncontested Matters and at other times subject to court availability Monday 9:00 am Trial Docket – two week Tuesday 9:00 am Ancillary Matters, Enforcements, DRO, Entry Wednesday 9:00 am

Ancillary Matters, Entry Thursday 9:00 am CPS, FOCAS, Ancillary Matters, Entry Friday 9:00 am Ancillary Matters, PreTrial All hearings may be combined to be heard on the same day.

 2. Late Calls A party or attorney running late to court must notify the clerk at least 30 minutes before docket call. Provide clerk the attorney’s name, cause number, where they are, time estimate before arrival, contact telephone number if more than 30 minutes late. Frequent late calls subject to verification. Frequent late calls due to traffic are unacceptable. Leave earlier.

 3. Scheduling Orders Scheduling Orders are issued 90 days after the case is filed with 90 days’ notice of the trial setting. Pretrial Conference will be held 10 days prior to trial. Follow Scheduling Orders, including but not limited to the following: a. Exchange of exhibit lists, exhibits, witness lists; b. Reasonable cooperation in response to discovery requests; c. Adherence to deadlines; d. Make courtesy calls to court regarding late appearance; e. Speak one at a time particularly with a record is being taken f. Be courteous to court personnel; g. Check files before trial and temporary orders hearings for relevant pleadings and have in front of the file; and h. Certificate of Conference for CPS, for special status, and modification of temporary orders.

 4. Trial or Hearing Reset Ancillary Hearing Resets – The party requesting the reset may reset through the clerk. If multiple parties have set a hearing for same date and time, all parties must agree to reset date. Trial Settings – Motions for Continuance require a hearing and must state specifics about the reason the continuance is requested.

 Agreed Continuances are not automatic but subject to the same requirements. If continuance is granted, a scheduling order must be attached with new pretrial and trial date. Attorney Vacation letters that are timely filed with the Harris County District Clerk are honored without a hearing or motion for continuance.

Divorce in Texas not for the faint of heart.

2005 Texas Family Code CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS FAMILY CODE CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 153.001. PUBLIC POLICY. (a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child; (2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and (3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.

 (b) A court may not render an order that conditions the right of a conservator to possession of or access to a child on the payment of child support. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. § 153.002. BEST INTEREST OF CHILD.

The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.003. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR MARITAL STATUS. The court shall consider the qualifications of the parties without regard to their marital status or to the sex of the party or the child in determining: (1) which party to appoint as sole managing conservator; (2) whether to appoint a party as joint managing conservator; and (3) the terms and conditions of conservator ship and possession of and access to the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.004.

HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. (a) In determining whether to appoint a party as a sole or joint managing conservator, the court shall consider evidence of the intentional use of abusive physical force by a party 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 pend- ency of the suit.

 (b) The court may not appoint joint managing conservators if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, including a sexual assault in violation of Section 22.011 or 22.021, Penal Code, that results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the child. A history of sexual abuse includes a sexual assault that results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the child, regardless of the prior relationship of the parents.

 It is a rebut table presumption that the appointment of a parent as the sole managing conservator of a child or as the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. (c) The court shall consider the commission of family violence in determining whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessor conservator.

 (d) The court may not allow a parent to have access to a child for whom it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a history or pattern of committing family violence during the two years preceding the date of the filing of the suit or during the pend-ency of the suit, unless the court: (1) finds that awarding the parent access to the child would not endanger the child's physical health or emotional welfare and would be in the best interest of the child; and (2) renders a possession order that is designed to protect the safety and well-being of the child and any other person who has been a victim of family violence committed by the parent and that may include a requirement that:

 (A) the periods of access be continuously supervised by an entity or person chosen by the court; (B) the exchange of possession of the child occur in a protective setting; (C) the parent abstain from the consumption of alcohol or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, within 12 hours prior to or during the period of access to the child; or (D) the parent attend and complete a battering intervention and prevention program as provided by Article 42.141, Code of Criminal Procedure, or, if such a program is not available, complete a course of treatment under Section 153.010. (e) It is a rebut-table presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child.

 (f) In determining under this section whether there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by a parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, the court shall consider whether a protective order was rendered under Chapter 85, Title 4, against the parent during the two-year period preceding the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 774, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 586, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 642, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.005.

APPOINTMENT OF SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR. (a) In a suit, the court may appoint a sole managing conservator or may appoint joint managing conservators. If the parents are or will be separated, the court shall appoint at least one managing conservator. (b) A managing conservator must be a parent, a competent adult, an authorized agency, or a licensed child-placing agency. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.006. APPOINTMENT OF POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR. (a) If a managing conservator is appointed, the court may appoint one or more possessory conservators. (b) The court shall specify the rights and duties of a person appointed possessory conservator.

 (c) The court shall specify and expressly state in the order the times and conditions for possession of or access to the child, unless a party shows good cause why specific orders would not be in the best interest of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.007. AGREED PARENTING PLAN. (a) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties to a suit, the parties may enter into a written agreed parenting plan containing provisions for conservator-ship and possession of the child and for modification of the parenting plan, including variations from the standard possession order.

 (b) If the court finds that the agreed parenting plan is in the child's best interest, the court shall render an order in accordance with the parenting plan. (c) Terms of the agreed parenting plan contained in the order or incorporated by reference regarding conservator-ship or support of or access to a child in an order may be enforced by all remedies available for enforcement of a judgment, including contempt, but are not enforceable as a contract. (d) If the court finds the agreed parenting plan is not in the child's best interest, the court may request the parties to submit a revised parenting plan or the court may render an order for the conservator-ship and possession of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 26, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 482, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. § 153.0071. ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.

 (a) On written agreement of the parties, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to arbitration. The agreement must state whether the arbitration is binding or non-binding. (b) If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order reflecting the arbitrator's award unless the court determines at a non-jury hearing that the award is not in the best interest of the child. The burden of proof at a hearing under this subsection is on the party seeking to avoid rendition of an order based on the arbitrator's award. (c) On the written agreement of the parties or on the court's own motion, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation.

 (d) A mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties if the agreement: (1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or capital letters or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; (2) is signed by each party to the agreement; and (3) is signed by the party's attorney, if any, who is present at the time the agreement is signed. (e) If a mediated settlement agreement meets the requirements of Subsection (d), a party is entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law. (e-1) Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (e), a court may decline to enter a judgment on a mediated settlement agreement if the court finds that: (1) a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, and that circumstance impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and (2) the agreement is not in the child's best interest.

 (f) A party may at any time prior to the final mediation order file a written objection to the referral of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation on the basis of family violence having been committed by another party against the objecting party or a child who is the subject of the suit. After an objection is filed, the suit may not be referred to mediation unless, on the request of a party, a hearing is held and the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the objection.

 If the suit is referred to mediation, the court shall order appropriate measures be taken to ensure the physical and emotional safety of the party who filed the objection. The order shall provide that the parties not be required to have face-to-face contact and that the parties be placed in separate rooms during mediation. This subsection does not apply to suits filed under Chapter 262. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 937, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 178, § 7, eff. Aug. 30, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1351, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 7, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.0072. COLLABORATIVE LAW.

 (a) On a written agreement of the parties and their attorneys, a suit affecting the parent-child relationship may be conducted under collaborative law procedures. (b) Collaborative law is a procedure in which the parties and their counsel agree in writing to use their best efforts and make a good faith attempt to resolve the suit affecting the parent-child relationship on an agreed basis without resorting to judicial intervention except to have the court approve the settlement agreement, make the legal pronouncements, and sign the orders required by law to effectuate the agreement of the parties as the court determines appropriate.

 The parties' counsel may not serve as litigation counsel except to ask the court to approve the settlement agreement. (c) A collaborative law agreement must include provisions for: (1) full and candid exchange of information between the parties and their attorneys as necessary to make a proper evaluation of the case; (2) suspending court intervention in the dispute while the parties are using collaborative law procedures; (3) hiring experts, as jointly agreed, to be used in the procedure; (4) withdrawal of all counsel involved in the collaborative law procedure if the collaborative law procedure does not result in settlement of the dispute; and (5) other provisions as agreed to by the parties consistent with a good faith effort to collaboratively settle the matter.

 (d) Notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule or law, a party is entitled to judgment on a collaborative law settlement agreement if the agreement: (1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is boldfaced, capitalized, or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; and (2) is signed by each party to the agreement and the attorney of each party. (e) Subject to Subsection (g), a court that is notified 30 days before trial that the parties are using collaborative law procedures to attempt to settle a dispute may not, until a party notifies the court that the collaborative law procedures did not result in a settlement: (1) set a hearing or trial in the case;

 (2) impose discovery deadlines; (3) require compliance with scheduling orders; or (4) dismiss the case. (f) The parties shall notify the court if the collaborative law procedures result in a settlement. If they do not, the parties shall file: (1) a status report with the court not later than the 180th day after the date of the written agreement to use the procedures; and (2) a status report on or before the first anniversary of the date of the written agreement to use the procedures, accompanied by a motion for continuance that the court shall grant if the status report indicates the desire of the parties to continue to use collaborative law procedures.

 (g) If the collaborative law procedures do not result in a settlement on or before the second anniversary of the date that the suit was filed, the court may: (1) set the suit for trial on the regular docket; or (2) dismiss the suit without prejudice. (h) The provisions for confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution procedures as provided in Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, apply equally to collaborative law procedures under this section. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1022, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

 Amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 8, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.008. CHILD'S PREFERENCE OF PERSON TO DESIGNATE RESIDENCE. A child 12 years of age or older may file with the court in writing the name of the person who is the child's preference to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child, subject to the approval of the court.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1390, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1289, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.009. INTERVIEW OF CHILD IN CHAMBERS. (a) In a non-jury trial or at a hearing, on the application of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child, the court shall interview in chambers a child 12 years of age or older and may interview in chambers a child under 12 years of age to determine the child's wishes as to conservator-ship or as to the person who shall have the exclusive right to determine the child's primary residence.

 The court may also interview a child in chambers on the court's own motion for a purpose specified by this subsection. (b) In a nonjury trial or at a hearing, on the application of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child or on the court's own motion, the court may interview the child in chambers to determine the child's wishes as to possession, access, or any other issue in the suit affecting the parent-child relationship.

 (c) Interviewing a child does not diminish the discretion of the court in determining the best interests of the child. (d) In a jury trial, the court may not interview the child in chambers regarding an issue on which a party is entitled to a jury verdict. (e) In any trial or hearing, the court may permit the attorney for a party, the amicus attorney, the guardian ad litem for the child, or the attorney ad litem for the child to be present at the interview. (f) On the motion of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child, or on the court's own motion, the court shall cause a record of the interview to be made when the child is 12 years of age or older. A record of the interview shall be part of the record in the case.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 781, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1289, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 9, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.010. ORDER FOR FAMILY COUNSELING. (a) If the court finds at the time of a hearing that the parties have a history of conflict in resolving an issue of conservatorship or possession of or access to the child, the court may order a party to: (1) participate in counseling with a mental health professional who: (A) has a background in family therapy; (B) has a mental health license that requires as a minimum a master's degree; and (C) has training in domestic violence if the court determines that the training is relevant to the type of counseling needed; and (2) pay the cost of counseling.

 (b) If a person possessing the requirements of Subsection (a)(1) is not available in the county in which the court presides, the court may appoint a person the court believes is qualified to conduct the counseling ordered under Subsection (a). Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 645, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.011. SECURITY BOND. If the court finds that a person who has a possessory interest in a child may violate the court order relating to the interest, the court may order the party to execute a bond or deposit security. The court shall set the amount and condition the bond or security on compliance with the order. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.012. RIGHT TO PRIVACY; DELETION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN RECORDS.

 The court may order the custodian of records to delete all references in the records to the place of residence of either party appointed as a conservator of the child before the release of the records to another party appointed as a conservator. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.013. FALSE REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE. (a) If a party to a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship makes a report alleging child abuse by another party to the suit that the reporting party knows lacks a factual foundation, the court shall deem the report to be a knowingly false report.

 (b) Evidence of a false report of child abuse is admissible in a suit between the involved parties regarding the terms of conservatorship of a child. (c) If the court makes a finding under Subsection (a), the court shall impose a civil penalty not to exceed $500. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 28, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 786, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.014. VISITATION CENTERS AND VISITATION EXCHANGE FACILITIES.

 A county may establish a visitation center or a visitation exchange facility for the purpose of facilitating the terms of a court order providing for the possession of or access to a child. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 577, § 1, eff. June 11, 2001. SUBCHAPTER B. PARENT APPOINTED AS CONSERVATOR: IN GENERAL § 153.071. COURT TO SPECIFY RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR. If both parents are appointed as conservators of the child, the court shall specify the rights and duties of a parent that are to be exercised: (1) by each parent independently; (2) by the joint agreement of the parents; and (3) exclusively by one parent. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.072. WRITTEN FINDING REQUIRED TO LIMIT PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES. The court may limit the rights and duties of a parent appointed as a conservator if the court makes a written finding that the limitation is in the best interest of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.073.

 RIGHTS OF PARENT AT ALL TIMES. (a) Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has at all times the right: (1) to receive information from any other conservator of the child concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child; (2) to confer with the other parent to the extent possible before making a decision concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child; (3) of access to medical, dental, psychological, and educational records of the child; (4) to consult with a physician, dentist, or psychologist of the child; (5) to consult with school officials concerning the child's welfare and educational status, including school activities; (6) to attend school activities;

 (7) to be designated on the child's records as a person to be notified in case of an emergency; (8) to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment during an emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the child; and (9) to manage the estate of the child to the extent the estate has been created by the parent or the parent's family. (b) The court shall specify in the order the rights that a parent retains at all times. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 29, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.074. RIGHTS AND DUTIES DURING PERIOD OF POSSESSION.

 Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has the following rights and duties during the period that the parent has possession of the child: (1) the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the child; (2) the duty to support the child, including providing the child with clothing, food, shelter, and medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure; (3) the right to consent for the child to medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure; and (4) the right to direct the moral and religious training of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 30, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.075. DUTIES OF PARENT NOT APPOINTED CONSERVATOR. 

The court may order a parent not appointed as a managing or a possessory conservator to perform other parental duties, including paying child support. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.076. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. (a) The court shall order that each conservator of a child has a duty to inform the other conservator of the child in a timely manner of significant information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child. (b) The court shall order that each conservator of a child has the duty to inform the other conservator of the child if the conservator resides with for at least 30 days, marries, or intends to marry a person who the conservator knows: (1) is registered as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure; or (2) is currently charged with an offense for which on conviction the person would be required to register under that chapter.

 (c) The notice required to be made under Subsection (b) must be made as soon as practicable but not later than the 40th day after the date the conservator of the child begins to reside with the person or the 10th day after the date the marriage occurs, as appropriate. The notice must include a description of the offense that is the basis of the person's requirement to register as a sex offender or of the offense with which the person is charged. (d) A conservator commits an offense if the conservator fails to provide notice in the manner required by Subsections (b) and
 (c). An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 31, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 330, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. SUBCHAPTER C. PARENT APPOINTED AS SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR § 153.131.

 PRESUMPTION THAT PARENT TO BE APPOINTED MANAGING CONSERVATOR. (a) Subject to the prohibition in Section 153.004, unless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child. (b) It 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. A finding of a history of family violence involving the parents of a child removes the presumption under this subsection. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 32, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1193, § 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.132.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT APPOINTED SOLE MANAGING CONSERVATOR. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as sole managing conservator of a child has the rights and duties provided by Subchapter B and the following exclusive rights: (1) the right to designate the primary residence of the child; (2) the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures; (3) the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment; (4) the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the child and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the child; (5) the right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child; (6) the right to consent to marriage and to enlistment in the armed forces of the United States; (7) the right to make decisions concerning the child's education;

 (8) the right to the services and earnings of the child; and (9) except when a guardian of the child's estate or a guardian or attorney ad litem has been appointed for the child, the right to act as an agent of the child in relation to the child's estate if the child's action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign government. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 33, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 10, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.133. PARENTING PLAN FOR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATORSHIP.

 (a) If a written agreed parenting plan is filed with the court, the court shall render an order appointing the parents as joint managing conservators only if the parenting plan: (1) designates the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child and: (A) establishes, until modified by further order, the geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the child's primary residence; or (B) specifies that the conservator may designate the child's primary residence without regard to geographic location; (2) specifies the rights and duties of each parent regarding the child's physical care, support, and education; (3) includes provisions to minimize disruption of the child's education, daily routine, and association with friends; (4) allocates between the parents, independently, jointly, or exclusively, all of the remaining rights and duties of a parent provided by Chapter 151;

 (5) is voluntarily and knowingly made by each parent and has not been repudiated by either parent at the time the order is rendered; and (6) is in the best interest of the child. (b) The agreed parenting plan must contain an alternative dispute resolution procedure that the parties agree to use before requesting enforcement or modification of the terms and conditions of the joint conservator-ship through litigation, except in an emergency. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 936, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 482, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. § 153.134. COURT-ORDERED JOINT CONSERVATOR-SHIP. (a) If a written agreed parenting plan is not filed with the court, the court may render an order appointing the parents joint managing conservators only if the appointment is in the best interest of the child, considering the following factors:

 (1) whether the physical, psychological, or emotional needs and development of the child will benefit from the appointment of joint managing conservators; (2) 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; (3) whether each parent can encourage and accept a positive relationship between the child and the other parent; (4) whether both parents participated in child rearing before the filing of the suit; (5) the geographical proximity of the parents' residences;

 (6) if the child is 12 years of age or older, the child's preference, if any, regarding the person to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; and (7) any other relevant factor. (b) In rendering an order appointing joint managing conservators, the court shall: (1) designate the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the child and: (A) establish, until modified by further order, a geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the child's primary residence; or (B) specify that the conservator may determine the child's primary residence without regard to geographic location;

 (2) specify the rights and duties of each parent regarding the child's physical care, support, and education; (3) include provisions to minimize disruption of the child's education, daily routine, and association with friends; (4) allocate between the parents, independently, jointly, or exclusively, all of the remaining rights and duties of a parent as provided by Chapter 151; and (5) if feasible, recommend that the parties use an alternative dispute resolution method before requesting enforcement or modification of the terms and conditions of the joint conservator-ship through litigation

We dont need new laws in Texas regarding conservatory we need enforcement.

2005 Texas Family Code CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS FAMILY CODE CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS

 SUB CHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 153.001. PUBLIC POLICY. (a) The public policy of this state is to: (1) assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child; (2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and (3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage. (b) A court may not render an order that conditions the right of a conservator to possession of or access to a child on the payment of child support.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 25, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. § 153.002. BEST INTEREST OF CHILD. The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.003. NO DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX OR MARITAL STATUS.

 The court shall consider the qualifications of the parties without regard to their marital status or to the sex of the party or the child in determining: (1) which party to appoint as sole managing conservator; (2) whether to appoint a party as joint managing conservator; and (3) the terms and conditions of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.004. HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. (a) In determining whether to appoint a party as a sole or joint managing conservator, the court shall consider evidence of the intentional use of abusive physical force by a party 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.

 (b) The court may not appoint joint managing conservators if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, including a sexual assault in violation of Section 22.011 or 22.021, Penal Code, that results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the child. A history of sexual abuse includes a sexual assault that results in the other parent becoming pregnant with the child, regardless of the prior relationship of the parents.

 It is a rebuttable presumption that the appointment of a parent as the sole managing conservator of a child or as the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child is not in the best interest of the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. (c) The court shall consider the commission of family violence in determining whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory

conservator

. (d) The court may not allow a parent to have access to a child for whom it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a history or pattern of committing family violence during the two years preceding the date of the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit, unless the court:

 (1) finds that awarding the parent access to the child would not endanger the child's physical health or emotional welfare and would be in the best interest of the child; and (2) renders a possession order that is designed to protect the safety and well-being of the child and any other person who has been a victim of family violence committed by the parent and that may include a requirement that:

 (A) the periods of access be continuously supervised by an entity or person chosen by the court; (B) the exchange of possession of the child occur in a protective setting; (C) the parent abstain from the consumption of alcohol or a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, within 12 hours prior to or during the period of access to the child; or (D) the parent attend and complete a battering intervention and prevention program as provided by Article 42.141, Code of Criminal Procedure, or, if such a program is not available, complete a course of treatment under Section 153.010.

 (e) It is a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if credible evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. (f) In determining under this section whether there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by a parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child, the court shall consider whether a protective order was rendered under Chapter 85, Title 4, against the parent during the two-year period preceding the filing of the suit or during the pendency of the suit. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995.

 Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 774, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 787, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 586, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 642, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.005. APPOINTMENT OF SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR. (a) In a suit, the court may appoint a sole managing conservator or may appoint joint managing conservators. If the parents are or will be separated, the court shall appoint at least one managing conservator. (b) A managing conservator must be a parent, a competent adult, an authorized agency, or a licensed child-placing agency. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.006. APPOINTMENT OF POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR. (a) If a managing conservator is appointed, the court may appoint one or more possessory conservators.

 (b) The court shall specify the rights and duties of a person appointed possessory conservator. (c) The court shall specify and expressly state in the order the times and conditions for possession of or access to the child, unless a party shows good cause why specific orders would not be in the best interest of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.007. AGREED PARENTING PLAN.

 (a) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes between the parties to a suit, the parties may enter into a written agreed parenting plan containing provisions for conservatorship and possession of the child and for modification of the parenting plan, including variations from the standard possession order. (b) If the court finds that the agreed parenting plan is in the child's best interest, the court shall render an order in accordance with the parenting plan.

 (c) Terms of the agreed parenting plan contained in the order or incorporated by reference regarding conservatorship or support of or access to a child in an order may be enforced by all remedies available for enforcement of a judgment, including contempt, but are not enforceable as a contract. (d) If the court finds the agreed parenting plan is not in the child's best interest, the court may request the parties to submit a revised parenting plan or the court may render an order for the conservatorship and possession of the child.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 26, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 482, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. § 153.0071. ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES. (a) On written agreement of the parties, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to arbitration. The agreement must state whether the arbitration is binding or non-binding. (b) If the parties agree to binding arbitration, the court shall render an order reflecting the arbitrator's award unless the court determines at a non-jury hearing that the award is not in the best interest of the child.

 The burden of proof at a hearing under this subsection is on the party seeking to avoid rendition of an order based on the arbitrator's award. (c) On the written agreement of the parties or on the court's own motion, the court may refer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation. (d) A mediated settlement agreement is binding on the parties if the agreement: (1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is in boldfaced type or capital letters or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; (2) is signed by each party to the agreement; and (3) is signed by the party's attorney, if any, who is present at the time the agreement is signed.

 (e) If a mediated settlement agreement meets the requirements of Subsection (d), a party is entitled to judgment on the mediated settlement agreement notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule of law. (e-1) Notwithstanding Subsections (d) and (e), a court may decline to enter a judgment on a mediated settlement agreement if the court finds that: (1) a party to the agreement was a victim of family violence, and that circumstance impaired the party's ability to make decisions; and (2) the agreement is not in the child's best interest. (f) A party may at any time prior to the final mediation order file a written objection to the referral of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship to mediation on the basis of family violence having been committed by another party against the objecting party or a child who is the subject of the suit.

 After an objection is filed, the suit may not be referred to mediation unless, on the request of a party, a hearing is held and the court finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the objection. If the suit is referred to mediation, the court shall order appropriate measures be taken to ensure the physical and emotional safety of the party who filed the objection. The order shall provide that the parties not be required to have face-to-face contact and that the parties be placed in separate rooms during mediation. This subsection does not apply to suits filed under Chapter 262. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 937, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 178, § 7, eff. Aug. 30, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1351, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 7, eff. June 18, 2005.

IT HAS TO BE IN THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD. Family court must understand they cannot simply remove children from father to mother because mother makes less money compared to father. This is a practice that is clearly illegal and has to to be brought to an end. § 153.0072. COLLABORATIVE LAW.

 (a) On a written agreement of the parties and their attorneys, a suit affecting the parent-child relationship may be conducted under collaborative law procedures. (b) Collaborative law is a procedure in which the parties and their counsel agree in writing to use their best efforts and make a good faith attempt to resolve the suit affecting the parent-child relationship on an agreed basis without resorting to judicial intervention except to have the court approve the settlement agreement, make the legal pronouncements, and sign the orders required by law to effectuate the agreement of the parties as the court determines appropriate.

 The parties' counsel may not serve as litigation counsel except to ask the court to approve the settlement agreement. (c) A collaborative law agreement must include provisions for: (1) full and candid exchange of information between the parties and their attorneys as necessary to make a proper evaluation of the case; (2) suspending court intervention in the dispute while the parties are using collaborative law procedures; (3) hiring experts, as jointly agreed, to be used in the procedure; (4) withdrawal of all counsel involved in the collaborative law procedure if the collaborative law procedure does not result in settlement of the dispute; and (5) other provisions as agreed to by the parties consistent with a good faith effort to collaboratively settle the matter. (d) Notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule or law, a party is entitled to judgment on a collaborative law settlement agreement if the agreement:

 (1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is boldfaced, capitalized, or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; and (2) is signed by each party to the agreement and the attorney of each party. (e) Subject to Subsection (g), a court that is notified 30 days before trial that the parties are using collaborative law procedures to attempt to settle a dispute may not, until a party notifies the court that the collaborative law procedures did not result in a settlement: (1) set a hearing or trial in the case; (2) impose discovery deadlines; (3) require compliance with scheduling orders; or (4) dismiss the case. (f) The parties shall notify the court if the collaborative law procedures result in a settlement. If they do not, the parties shall file:

 (1) a status report with the court not later than the 180th day after the date of the written agreement to use the procedures; and (2) a status report on or before the first anniversary of the date of the written agreement to use the procedures, accompanied by a motion for continuance that the court shall grant if the status report indicates the desire of the parties to continue to use collaborative law procedures. (g) If the collaborative law procedures do not result in a settlement on or before the second anniversary of the date that the suit was filed, the court may:

 (1) set the suit for trial on the regular docket; or (2) dismiss the suit without prejudice. (h) The provisions for confidentiality of alternative dispute resolution procedures as provided in Chapter 154, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, apply equally to collaborative law procedures under this section. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1022, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 8, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.008. CHILD'S PREFERENCE OF PERSON TO DESIGNATE RESIDENCE

. A child 12 years of age or older may file with the court in writing the name of the person who is the child's preference to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child, subject to the approval of the court. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1390, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1289, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.009. INTERVIEW OF CHILD IN CHAMBERS. (a) In a nonjury trial or at a hearing, on the application of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child, the court shall interview in chambers a child 12 years of age or older and may interview in chambers a child under 12 years of age to determine the child's wishes as to conservatorship or as to the person who shall have the exclusive right to determine the child's primary residence.

 The court may also interview a child in chambers on the court's own motion for a purpose specified by this subsection. (b) In a nonjury trial or at a hearing, on the application of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child or on the court's own motion, the court may interview the child in chambers to determine the child's wishes as to possession, access, or any other issue in the suit affecting the parent-child relationship. (c) Interviewing a child does not diminish the discretion of the court in determining the best interests of the child. (d) In a jury trial, the court may not interview the child in chambers regarding an issue on which a party is entitled to a jury verdict. 

(e) In any trial or hearing, the court may permit the attorney for a party, the amicus attorney, the guardian ad litem for the child, or the attorney ad litem for the child to be present at the interview. (f) On the motion of a party, the amicus attorney, or the attorney ad litem for the child, or on the court's own motion, the court shall cause a record of the interview to be made when the child is 12 years of age or older. A record of the interview shall be part of the record in the case. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 781, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1289, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 9, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.010. ORDER FOR FAMILY COUNSELING.

 (a) If the court finds at the time of a hearing that the parties have a history of conflict in resolving an issue of conservatorship or possession of or access to the child, the court may order a party to: (1) participate in counseling with a mental health professional who: (A) has a background in family therapy; (B) has a mental health license that requires as a minimum a master's degree; and (C) has training in domestic violence if the court determines that the training is relevant to the type of counseling needed; and (2) pay the cost of counseling. (b) If a person possessing the requirements of Subsection (a)(1) is not available in the county in which the court presides, the court may appoint a person the court believes is qualified to conduct the counseling ordered under Subsection (a). Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 645, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.011. SECURITY BOND.

 If the court finds that a person who has a possessory interest in a child may violate the court order relating to the interest, the court may order the party to execute a bond or deposit security. The court shall set the amount and condition the bond or security on compliance with the order. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.012. RIGHT TO PRIVACY; DELETION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION IN RECORDS.

 The court may order the custodian of records to delete all references in the records to the place of residence of either party appointed as a conservator of the child before the release of the records to another party appointed as a conservator. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.013. FALSE REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE. (a) If a party to a pending suit affecting the parent-child relationship makes a report alleging child abuse by another party to the suit that the reporting party knows lacks a factual foundation, the court shall deem the report to be a knowingly false report. (b) Evidence of a false report of child abuse is admissible in a suit between the involved parties regarding the terms of conservatorship of a child. (c) If the court makes a finding under Subsection (a), the court shall impose a civil penalty not to exceed $500. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 28, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 786, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.014. VISITATION CENTERS AND VISITATION EXCHANGE FACILITIES.

 A county may establish a visitation center or a visitation exchange facility for the purpose of facilitating the terms of a court order providing for the possession of or access to a child. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 577, § 1, eff. June 11, 2001. SUBCHAPTER B. PARENT APPOINTED AS CONSERVATOR: IN GENERAL § 153.071. COURT TO SPECIFY RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT APPOINTED A CONSERVATOR. If both parents are appointed as conservators of the child, the court shall specify the rights and duties of a parent that are to be exercised: (1) by each parent independently; (2) by the joint agreement of the parents; and (3) exclusively by one parent. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.072. WRITTEN FINDING REQUIRED TO LIMIT PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES.

 The court may limit the rights and duties of a parent appointed as a conservator if the court makes a written finding that the limitation is in the best interest of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.073. RIGHTS OF PARENT AT ALL TIMES. (a) Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has at all times the right: (1) to receive information from any other conservator of the child concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child; (2) to confer with the other parent to the extent possible before making a decision concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child; (3) of access to medical, dental, psychological, and educational records of the child; (4) to consult with a physician, dentist, or psychologist of the child; (5) to consult with school officials concerning the child's welfare and educational status, including school activities; (6) to attend school activities; (7) to be designated on the child's records as a person to be notified in case of an emergency; (8) to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment during an emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the child; and (9) to manage the estate of the child to the extent the estate has been created by the parent or the parent's family. (b) The court shall specify in the order the rights that a parent retains at all times.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 29, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.074. RIGHTS AND DUTIES DURING PERIOD OF POSSESSION. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has the following rights and duties during the period that the parent has possession of the child: (1) the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the child; (2) the duty to support the child, including providing the child with clothing, food, shelter, and medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure; (3) the right to consent for the child to medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure; and (4) the right to direct the moral and religious training of the child. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 30, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. § 153.075. DUTIES OF PARENT NOT APPOINTED CONSERVATOR.

 The court may order a parent not appointed as a managing or a possessory conservator to perform other parental duties, including paying child support. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. § 153.076. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. (a) The court shall order that each conservator of a child has a duty to inform the other conservator of the child in a timely manner of significant information concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child. (b) The court shall order that each conservator of a child has the duty to inform the other conservator of the child if the conservator resides with for at least 30 days, marries, or intends to marry a person who the conservator knows:

 (1) is registered as a sex offender under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure; or (2) is currently charged with an offense for which on conviction the person would be required to register under that chapter. (c) The notice required to be made under Subsection (b) must be made as soon as practicable but not later than the 40th day after the date the conservator of the child begins to reside with the person or the 10th day after the date the marriage occurs, as appropriate.

 The notice must include a description of the offense that is the basis of the person's requirement to register as a sex offender or of the offense with which the person is charged. (d) A conservator commits an offense if the conservator fails to provide notice in the manner required by Subsections (b) and (c). An offense under this subsection is a Class C misdemeanor. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 31, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 330, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2003. SUBCHAPTER C. PARENT APPOINTED AS SOLE OR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR § 153.131. PRESUMPTION

THAT PARENT TO BE APPOINTED MANAGING CONSERVATOR. (a) Subject to the prohibition in Section 153.004, unless the court finds that appointment of the parent or parents would not be in the best interest of the child because the appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development, a parent shall be appointed sole managing conservator or both parents shall be appointed as joint managing conservators of the child. (b) It 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.

 A finding of a history of family violence involving the parents of a child removes the presumption under this subsection. Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 32, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1193, § 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. § 153.132. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT APPOINTED SOLE MANAGING CONSERVATOR. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as sole managing conservator of a child has the rights and duties provided by Subchapter B and the following exclusive rights: (1) the right to designate the primary residence of the child; (2) the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures; (3) the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment; (4) the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the child and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the child; (5) the right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child; (6) the right to consent to marriage and to enlistment in the armed forces of the United States; (7) the right to make decisions concerning the child's education; (8) the right to the services and earnings of the child; and (9) except when a guardian of the child's estate or a guardian or attorney ad litem has been appointed for the child, the right to act as an agent of the child in relation to the child's estate if the child's action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign government.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 751, § 33, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 916, § 10, eff. June 18, 2005. § 153.133. PARENTING PLAN FOR JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATORSHIP. (a) If a written agreed parenting plan is filed with the court, the court shall render an order appointing the parents as joint managing conservators only if the parenting plan: (1) designates the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child and: (A) establishes, until modified by further order, the geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the child's primary residence; or (B) specifies that the conservator may designate the child's primary residence without regard to geographic location; (2) specifies the rights and duties of each parent regarding the child's physical care, support, and education; (3) includes provisions to minimize disruption of the child's education, daily routine, and association with friends; (4) allocates between the parents, independently, jointly, or exclusively, all of the remaining rights and duties of a parent provided by Chapter 151; (5) is voluntarily and knowingly made by each parent and has not been repudiated by either parent at the time the order is rendered; and (6) is in the best interest of the child. (b) The agreed parenting plan must contain an alternative dispute resolution procedure that the parties agree to use before requesting enforcement or modification of the terms and conditions of the joint conservatorship through litigation, except in an emergency.

 Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, § 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 936, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 482, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. § 153.134. COURT-ORDERED JOINT CONSERVATORSHIP. (a) If a written agreed parenting plan is not filed with the court, the court may render an order appointing the parents joint managing conservators only if the appointment is in the best interest of the child, considering the following factors: (1) whether the physical, psychological, or emotional needs and development of the child will benefit from the appointment of joint managing conservators; (2) 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; (3) whether each parent can encourage and accept a positive relationship between the child and the other parent; (4) whether both parents participated in child rearing before the filing of the suit; (5) the geographical proximity of the parents' residences; (6) if the child is 12 years of age or older, the child's preference, if any, regarding the person to have the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child; and (7) any other relevant factor.

 (b) In rendering an order appointing joint managing conservators, the court shall: (1) designate the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the child and: (A) establish, until modified by further order, a geographic area within which the conservator shall maintain the child's primary residence; or (B) specify that the conservator may determine the child's primary residence without regard to geographic location; (2) specify the rights and duties of each parent regarding the child's physical care, support, and education; (3) include provisions to minimize disruption of the child's education, daily routine, and association with friends; (4) allocate between the parents, independently, jointly, or exclusively, all of the remaining rights and duties of a parent as provided by Chapter 151; and (5) if feasible, recommend that the parties use an alternative dispute resolution method before requesting enforcement or modification of the terms and conditions of the joint conservatorship through litigation Family court 246 Houston consider conservatorship as a tool to punish a parent they do not support.

 The court curtail evidence and frame trials to support one side of a divorce trial. An entire case conducted over a two day period does not once mention the best interest of the child. The judges rendition eliminated and discussion regarding the best interest of the child, and the attorney given by the court to write the final decree placed all emphasis on the debts of the mother and needs associated with her poor lifestyle decisions. Family court 246 seem to consider 50/50 parenting as nonsense and ignores the fact that this is the preference of State law makers.

ARE FAMILY COURT JUDGES INHERENTLY BIAS

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.153.htm?_utm_source=1-2-2

PLEASE VIEW THE LINK ABOVE. THERE YOU WILL FIND THE DEVIATION FROM TEXAS LAW BY FAMILY COURT JUDGES THAT AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL THE FAMILY DEATH BLOW TO SO MANY MINORITY FAMILIES IN AMERICA. Let me take this opportunity to thank so many people in Europe, Asia, Caribbean and United States who read my blogs, tweets and posts. Your support is greatly appreciated and believe this or not you are contributing to the sustainability and survival of children and families in America.

Judges prop favored parent to advantage them in preparation for final divorce trial. This mother was given free rent for 5 months and was protected from evidence during trial that would expose family violence, criminal mischief and attaching a neighbor using a chain saw. Most States have laws that would effectively solve many family court problems. Dishonest lawyers and bias judges collaborate to rape parents of resources needed to provide for their children by ignoring family rules, laws, and the Constitution. The longer a trial the greater the cost for court, motions, processing and attorneys. All at the expense of one or both parents. I have posted a detailed report regarding the most potent lethal tools used by family court judges to inflect harm and tyranny on minority families.

Unless all sectors of America recognize the benefit of abiding by laws, America will not sustain its reputation as being a free country. In fact this status is being debated world wide and is fueling conflicts in many regions of the world.Family courts display a sense of lawlessness and blatant disregard for laws approaching comparison with many countries plagued with civil unrest and disputes. Family court gives children to mother in spite of obvious dangers associated with their decision and testified to on numerous occasions. This mother is flagged by Texas laws as being questionable for Conservator of children. Could it be the court simply made a mistake or is the court living up to its cultural practices? The combination Attorney General local office, Judges and Attorneys of Family Courts know that if family laws in Texas were adhered to in its basic form, their profiteering using the courts would be no more, trials would be shorter, parents would be much more satisfied with final decisions, children would retain their parents role, communities would benefit from better community participation, parents would be less stress, parents would be more productive over all, tax payers would be less accountable for non productive costs including health insurance, confidence would be restored in the court system making divorce cases more manageable eliminating jury trials for agreements between parents. Judges should be prosecuted like any American are when they commit fraud by fixing cases to favor lawyers who they are accustomed to or contribute to their election, key staff members should be rotated to different courts in order to break the relationship between staff and judges. The very existence of America as an admired nation depends on the quality of adults derived from our children depending on our judgment today. Family court is mutilating our families today and endangering the status of the country for tomorrow.

It should not, cannot and don't have to be to the primary benefit of ,lawyers, judges and parents when children are concerned. The prime focus should be on child welfare. For family court policy and culture to be destroy one parent, eventually destroying both, and imposing child care burden on the tax payers when other natural options are available that would result in little change to the child situation and no cost to tax payers is immoral, evil, wrong and illegal, inconsistent with Texas laws detailed above. Texas does not need additional laws. Texas needs to hold judges responsible who ignore existing laws, statutes and documented guidelines. Many of the ignored laws were addressed and confirmed or recommended by the US supreme courts and or appeals court. Yet family court judges simply impose verdicts that fits their liking and party they support. These judges know less than 1% of cases will be appealed so 90% yet studies show 1 in 4 family case results in family courts are modified by the courts and 70% of bench trials that are appealed and overturned are due to lack of due process. Family courts do not believe in due process since they decide the out come of a case long before the trial begins. Unless judges are prohibited from punishing parents by curtailing visitation and arbitrary child support instead of allowing caring parents the opportunity to serve the best interest of the child the result at final trial will be far worse than at the initial. The 50/50 requirement, each parent provide support when the child is in his or her possession and other expenses shared equally would benefit the child and bring to an end family court corruption that is so obvious in America today.

FAMILY COURTS SEEM TO MANIPULATE FAMILY LAWS

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.153.htm?_utm_source=1-2-2

PLEASE VIEW THE LINK ABOVE. THERE YOU WILL FIND THE DEVIATION FROM TEXAS LAW BY FAMILY COURT JUDGES THAT AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL THE FAMILY DEATH BLOW TO SO MANY MINORITY FAMILIES IN AMERICA

. Let me take this opportunity to thank so many people in Europe, Asia, Caribbean and United States who read my blogs, tweets and posts. Your support is greatly appreciated and believe this or not you are contributing to the sustainability and survival of children and families in America.

Family courts have been accumulating a reputation of questionable authenticity for many years. Many atrocities committed by family courts have been ignored by court authorities and law makers. Judges have been given wide latitude and protection from protection. Judges have taken upon themselves to ignore laws and oppress those unable to defend themselves against great power available to judges.

Judges prop favored parent to advantage them in preparation for final divorce trial. This mother was given free rent for 5 months and was protected from evidence during trial that would expose family violence, criminal mischief and attaching a neighbor using a chain saw.

 Most States have laws that would effectively solve many family court problems.

 Dishonest lawyers and bias judges collaborate to rape parents of resources needed to provide for their children by ignoring family rules, laws, and the Constitution.

 The longer a trial the greater the cost for court, motions, processing and attorneys. All at the expense of one or both parents. I have posted a detailed report regarding the most potent lethal tools used by family court judges to inflect harm and tyranny on minority families.

Unless all sectors of America recognize the benefit of abiding by laws, America will not sustain its reputation as being a free country. In fact this status is being debated world wide and is fueling conflicts in many regions of the world.

Family courts display a sense of lawlessness and blatant disregard for laws approaching comparison with many countries plagued with civil unrest and disputes. Family court gives children to mother in spite of obvious dangers associated with their decision and testified to on numerous occasions.

This mother is flagged by Texas laws as being questionable for Conservator of children. Could it be the court simply made a mistake or is the court living up to its cultural practices? The combination Attorney General local office, Judges and Attorneys of Family Courts know that if family laws in Texas were adhered to in its basic form, their profiteering using the courts would be no more, trials would be shorter, parents would be much more satisfied with final decisions, children would retain their parents role, communities would benefit from better community participation, parents would be less stress, parents would be more productive over all, tax payers would be less accountable for non productive costs including health insurance, confidence would be restored in the court system making divorce cases more manageable eliminating jury trials for agreements between parents.

 Judges should be prosecuted like any American are when they commit fraud by fixing cases to favor lawyers who they are accustomed to or contribute to their election, key staff members should be rotated to different courts in order to break the relationship between staff and judges. The very existence of America as an admired nation depends on the quality of adults derived from our children depending on our judgment today. Family court is mutilating our families today and endangering the status of the country for tomorrow.

It should not, cannot and don't have to be to the primary benefit of ,lawyers, judges and parents when children are concerned. The prime focus should be on child welfare.

For family court policy and culture to be destroy one parent, eventually destroying both, and imposing child care burden on the tax payers when other natural options are available that would result in little change to the child situation and no cost to tax payers is immoral, evil, wrong and illegal, inconsistent with Texas laws detailed above. Texas does not need additional laws.

 Texas needs to hold judges responsible who ignore existing laws, statutes and documented guidelines. Many of the ignored laws were addressed and confirmed or recommended by the US supreme courts and or appeals court. Yet family court judges simply impose verdicts that fits their liking and party they support.

These judges know less than 1% of cases will be appealed so 90% yet studies show 1 in 4 family case results in family courts are modified by the courts and 70% of bench trials that are appealed and overturned are due to lack of due process. Family courts do not believe in due process since they decide the out come of a case long before the trial begins.

 Unless judges are prohibited from punishing parents by curtailing visitation and arbitrary child support instead of allowing caring parents the opportunity to serve the best interest of the child the result at final trial will be far worse than at the initial.

  The 50/50 requirement, each parent provide support when the child is in his or her possession and other expenses shared equally would benefit the child and bring to an end family court corruption that is so obvious in America today.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH 50/50 PARENTING?

We have to take the fight to Family court working with law makers to achieve the following. View links below. 1) Implement Shared Parenting legislation with EQUAL RIGHTS for both parents in divorce, unless a jury trial proves this would be harmful to the children due to a clear and proven case of an unfit parent, or BOTH parents agree otherwise.

This means a right to equal time unless otherwise agreed. 2) Change unconstitutional, predatory and abusive restraining order laws that use false allegations for advantage in divorce by taking away the children, home and income of a man whenever a woman says the word "fear" to support the growth of the multi-billion dollar, greedy and out of control Divorce and Domestic Violence Industry. 3)

Family Court Reform including full accountability for judges, who ignore due process, the U.S. Constitution, other laws and their oath of office daily. RESOURCES www.FathersUnite.org www.FathersAndFamilies.org ACFC American Coalition for Fathers and Children www.ACFC.org www.FatherhoodCoalition.org 617-SAD-DADS www.Jail4Judges.org www.fatherhoodcoalition.org And many other organizations now uniting to demand equal rights for fathers. See pages 23 and 30 for more resources. JUSTICE IS COMING! SPEAK UP! SPREAD THE WORD! E

Fathers rights endangered in family courts

Fathers have long been concerned about the questionable nature of the way orders of protection are issued in the state. Oftentimes, protection orders are used in divorce proceedings as a way to annihilate dads’ chances of obtaining custody since nearly 90% of protective orders against men result in an unfavorable court decision. It’s clear that these orders are enabling de facto discrimination by the family courts.

 https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpQdW9Z32Xz3Ro3FK9o7KNcVQFSWoxCUoegKbh51nW8AO5tjif_sRufDfLjehdnNSVlzX_nHYWI4lIYtYJVvROiYCajrrlVGdyW0ViySAuKV26su0XsSMxcO225eQkEYczI07oefxnGYWr/s320/1+Sept+009.jpg Again and again,fathers are deluged with stories of dads being unfairly removed from their children’s lives by false accusations resulting in protective orders. Having an order of protection against you can even affect your criminal history and future employment prospects. Don’t stand by and watch your rights as a dad get swept away by false accusations.

 Seek out resources that understands the challenges and discrimination men face in the forum of family law and will give you the best chance of maximizing your role in your children’s lives and make it more difficult for family courts to take advantage of your rights and place your children at a disadvantage.

Fathers rights endangered in family courts

Fathers have long been concerned about the questionable nature of the way orders of protection are issued in the state. Oftentimes, protection orders are used in divorce proceedings as a way to annihilate dads’ chances of obtaining custody since nearly 90% of protective orders against men result in an unfavorable court decision. It’s clear that these orders are enabling de facto discrimination by the family courts.

 Again and again,fathers are deluged with stories of dads being unfairly removed from their children’s lives by false accusations resulting in protective orders. Having an order of protection against you can even affect your criminal history and future employment prospects.

 Don’t stand by and watch your rights as a dad get swept away by false accusations. Seek out resources that understands the challenges and discrimination men face in the forum of family law and will give you the best chance of maximizing your role in your children’s lives and make it more difficult for family courts to take advantage of your rights and place your children at a disadvantage.