Memorandum Opinion by Justice Brissette, 04-24-00799-CV, January 28, 2026.
On appeal from the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County
Synopsis
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment imposing a geographic residency restriction on a child, limiting her primary residence to Bexar County and contiguous counties. Despite the Mother’s status as Sole Managing Conservator and her desire to relocate to the Dominican Republic or Florida, the court held that the trial court properly exercised its broad discretion by prioritizing the public policy of ensuring frequent and continuing contact with the Father.
Relevance to Family Law
This case serves as a critical reminder to family law practitioners that the designation of a “Sole Managing Conservator” does not vest a parent with an absolute right to relocate. Texas courts continue to prioritize the public policy mandates of Texas Family Code § 153.001 over the personal domicile preferences of a parent. Even in cases where a parent claims a foreign legal domicile, the “intensely fact-driven” nature of the Lenz factors allows a trial court to tether the child to a specific Texas locale to preserve the non-custodial parent’s access and the child’s stability.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The case concerns the child S.I.S.F., born to parents who met in Miami but established a life in San Antonio, Texas. The Mother, originally from the Dominican Republic, moved to San Antonio in 2020 to live with the Father during her pregnancy. Although the romantic relationship ended shortly after the child’s birth, the parties remained in San Antonio. In November 2021, the Father filed a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR). During a multi-day trial, the Mother requested that no geographic restriction be imposed so she could return to the Dominican Republic or, alternatively, move to Florida. The trial court named the Mother Sole Managing Conservator but restricted the child’s primary residence to Bexar County and its contiguous counties, provided the Father continued to reside there. The Mother appealed, arguing her legal domicile remained the Dominican Republic and that the trial court abused its discretion by restricting the child’s movement.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a geographic residency restriction on the child’s residence to Bexar and contiguous counties, notwithstanding the Mother’s request for relocation and her status as Sole Managing Conservator.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code § 153.132(1), which allows a court to limit the rights of a Sole Managing Conservator regarding the child’s primary residence. The appellate review was governed by the public policy goals set forth in Texas Family Code § 153.001(a), focusing on frequent and continuing contact between parents and children. Furthermore, the court utilized the Lenz v. Lenz factors to evaluate the best interest of the child in relocation scenarios, including the reasons for the move, the effect on visitation with the noncustodial parent, the child’s age, and the availability of extended family.
Application
The court’s analysis began by addressing the Mother’s argument that her “legal domicile” was the Dominican Republic. The court clarified that the trial court’s order did not compel the Mother to change her own domicile, but rather exercised its statutory authority to restrict the child’s residence. In applying the Lenz factors, the court looked to the child’s entire life spent in San Antonio and the Father’s consistent presence. The court found that the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses and the sincerity of the relocation motives. By weighing the potential severance of the Father’s relationship against the Mother’s desire to move, the court determined that the trial court’s decision was a reasoned application of the law designed to provide the child with a stable and nonviolent environment while encouraging shared parental duties.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the geographic residency restriction. The court reasoned that because the trial court’s findings were supported by sufficient evidence regarding the child’s best interest and the Father’s involvement, the decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
The court further held that the public policy of the State of Texas—to assure frequent and continuing contact with parents who act in the child’s best interest—was properly served by the restriction. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.
Practical Application
For litigators, this opinion highlights the high burden of overturning a residency restriction on appeal. To succeed at the trial level, a party seeking to move must provide more than just a preference for their “original” domicile; they must produce affirmative evidence under Lenz that the move provides superior educational, health, or leisure opportunities that outweigh the loss of proximity to the other parent. For the parent opposing the move, emphasizing the “frequent and continuing contact” evidence is paramount, as appellate courts show extreme deference to trial judges who find that relocation would damage the non-custodial parent’s bond.
Checklists
Developing the Relocation Case
- Identify and document the child’s existing ties to the current community (schooling, medical providers, extracurricular activities).
- Create a comparative analysis of the proposed new location’s schools, healthcare, and safety versus the current jurisdiction.
- Detail the non-custodial parent’s history of exercising (or failing to exercise) possession and access.
- Gather evidence regarding the presence or absence of extended family in both the current and proposed locations.
Strategic Considerations for the Sole Managing Conservator
- Recognize that SMC status does not create a presumption in favor of relocation.
- Prepare a proposed “long-distance” possession schedule that accounts for travel costs and communication (e.g., Zoom/FaceTime) to mitigate the “frequent and continuing contact” argument.
- Address the Lenz factors specifically in trial briefs and proposed findings of fact to ensure the record supports the move as being in the child’s best interest.
Citation
In the Interest of S.I.S.F., No. 04-24-00799-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Jan. 28, 2026, no pet. h.).
Full Opinion
~~44fc4f74-8cda-423c-b82f-bf4f784100ed~~
Share this content: