Memorandum Opinion by Justice Palafox, 08-24-00342-CV, January 28, 2026.
On appeal from the 65th Judicial District Court, El Paso County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed a default final order in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) after the Mother failed to appear for a scheduled jury trial. The court held that a party’s failure to appear at trial, despite receiving proper notice, constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury trial under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 220 and allows the trial court to proceed with a bench hearing to determine conservatorship and support.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision reinforces the procedural finality of trial settings in high-conflict custody litigation. For family law practitioners, it serves as a stark reminder that the constitutional and statutory right to a jury trial is not self-executing if the requesting party fails to appear. The opinion underscores that a post-answer default in a SAPCR allows the trial court to move immediately from a jury docket to a bench prove-up, where the appearing party can secure permanent orders—often mirroring restrictive temporary orders—with minimal evidentiary resistance.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The case began with an Original Petition filed by the Texas Attorney General regarding the child, I.N.A.M. Both parents appeared and filed counter-petitions seeking managing conservatorship. Following a volatile de novo hearing in October 2022—during which Mother reportedly exhibited alarming behavior toward the court—the trial court issued a writ of attachment for the child and appointed Father as temporary sole managing conservator. Mother subsequently represented herself and requested a jury trial. The case was set for trial on June 10, 2024. On the morning of trial, the Attorney General and Father appeared with counsel, but Mother failed to appear. The trial court noted Mother’s absence, found she had defaulted after receiving notice, dismissed the jury panel, and proceeded to a final hearing. Father testified as the sole witness, and the trial court subsequently entered a final order appointing him sole managing conservator, restricting Mother to supervised visitation, and awarding child support arrears.
Issues Decided
The appellate court addressed whether the trial court erred by (1) proceeding to a final hearing in Mother’s absence, (2) determining that Mother waived her right to a jury trial by failing to appear, and (3) appointing Father as sole managing conservator and Mother as possessory conservator under a default judgment framework.
Rules Applied
The Court applied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 220, which stipulates that the failure of a party to appear for a trial shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a trial by jury. The court also examined the requirements for a post-answer default judgment, noting that while the defendant’s failure to appear does not constitute an abandonment of their answer, it does allow the court to proceed to trial in their absence, provided the plaintiff offers evidence to support their claims. Finally, the court reviewed the conservatorship determination under the “best interest of the child” standard set forth in Texas Family Code § 153.002.
Application
The court’s application of the law turned on the procedural waiver triggered by Mother’s absence. Because Mother had appeared and filed pleadings, the judgment was a post-answer default, requiring Father to prove his case. The appellate court found that Mother was provided notice of the trial setting but failed to attend, which under Rule 220, permitted the trial court to dismiss the jury panel without Mother’s consent. The court then looked to the evidence presented at the bench hearing. Father’s testimony, combined with the history of the case—including Mother’s prior refusal to follow court orders and the resulting writ of attachment—provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the trial court to conclude that Father should be the sole managing conservator. The court noted that because Mother was not present to provide testimony or cross-examine Father, the trial court was entitled to credit Father’s evidence as the sole basis for its best-interest determination.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in proceeding to a final hearing and dismissing the jury panel. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 220, Mother’s non-appearance at the trial setting, after receiving proper notice, operated as a waiver of her previously requested jury trial.
Furthermore, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its conservatorship and access rulings. The evidence presented by Father was legally and factually sufficient to support the appointment of Father as sole managing conservator and the imposition of supervised visitation for Mother, as these measures were found to be in the child’s best interest.
Practical Application
For the practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of “trial readiness” even when a default is anticipated. When an opposing party fails to appear for a jury trial, counsel should be prepared to immediately pivot to a bench prove-up. It is critical to have the client ready to testify comprehensively on best-interest factors, as the appellate court will look for a substantive evidentiary record to support the judgment, despite the default. For those representing volatile or pro se litigants, this case serves as a definitive warning to clients that their presence at the trial setting is the only way to preserve their constitutional right to a jury.
Checklists
Securing a Post-Answer Default at Trial
- Verify Notice:
- Ensure the record contains proof that the non-appearing party received notice of the specific trial setting.
- Address the Jury Request:
- If the non-appearing party requested a jury, move to dismiss the panel pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 220.
- Evidentiary Prove-Up:
- Do not rely on pleadings alone.
- Present testimony on conservatorship, support, and the best interest of the child (Holley factors).
- Offer exhibits regarding child support calculations and any history of family violence or instability.
Avoiding Procedural Waiver for Clients
- Calendar Management:
- Provide written notice of all trial settings to the client via multiple channels (email, certified mail).
- Withdrawal Issues:
- If withdrawing from a case, ensure the client is served with the current trial setting and the order of withdrawal explicitly states all pending deadlines.
- Record Preservation:
- If a client cannot appear due to an emergency, immediately file a verified motion for continuance to avoid the Rule 220 waiver.
Citation
In the Interest of I.N.A.M., No. 08-24-00342-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 28, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~db4cb556-7fca-49b8-a417-012264b96867~~
Share this content: