El Paso Court Reverses Order Requiring Parent to Pay Reduced Costs in Minor Name-Change Case

In the Matter of the Name Change of A.J.G., a Child, 08-26-00070-CV, April 22, 2026.

On appeal from 388th District Court, El Paso County, Texas

Synopsis

The El Paso Court of Appeals held that a trial court cannot require a parent to pay even reduced costs under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 when the parent’s inability-to-pay showing is uncontroverted and the court did not conduct a proper evidentiary hearing or receive admissible evidence in open court supporting a contrary finding. The order assessing $400 in reduced costs was reversed, and the court directed that the case proceed without payment of court costs or fees.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this was a minor name-change proceeding, the opinion has immediate significance for Texas family-law litigators handling SAPCRs, modifications, divorces, enforcement actions, protective-order matters, and ancillary family litigation in which a client must file a Rule 145 statement. The decision is a useful reminder that access-to-courts principles apply with real force in family cases, where litigants are frequently self-represented or financially strained, and that trial courts cannot short-circuit Rule 145 by relying on informal interviews, off-record information, appraisal printouts, or assumptions about support, employment, or property ownership without a proper evidentiary record. For practitioners, the case is particularly important in custody and divorce matters because filing fees, issuance fees, service costs, and other clerk-driven expenses can materially affect a client’s ability to obtain urgent relief.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Y.S., appearing pro se, filed a petition to change the name of her minor child and contemporaneously filed a Texas Supreme Court–approved Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. In that statement, she swore that she and/or her dependents received SNAP, Medicaid, and WIC benefits; that public assistance totaled $768 per month; that her take-home pay ranged from $600 to $1,000 per month; that she had only $140 in bank funds and a vehicle valued at $1,500; and that her monthly expenses were $2,205. She declared the information true under penalty of perjury.

Neither the district clerk nor the court reporter filed a contest. The trial court nevertheless set multiple “indigency hearings.” Before the final setting, Y.S. submitted supporting documentation showing Medicaid coverage for her children and SNAP benefits.

The trial court later signed an order stating that an “oral evidentiary hearing” had occurred and concluding that Y.S. could pay reduced costs of $400. But the order itself revealed that the information underlying the ruling came from an “interview process” with someone from the County Attorney’s Office, along with documents attached to the order, including pay records, a business-address printout, and an appraisal-district printout reflecting ownership of a residence. The order referenced child support and property ownership but did not address Y.S.’s listed monthly expenses or explain how the court concluded she had the ability to pay $400.

On review, the court reporter advised the court of appeals that “no record was taken” and that there had been an interview rather than a recorded hearing. Y.S. maintained that she was questioned outside the judge’s presence, was told she would have to pay reduced costs, and requested a formal hearing before the judge, but none occurred.

Issues Decided

• Whether Y.S. established her inability to afford court costs through uncontroverted evidence under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering payment of reduced costs without a proper evidentiary hearing and without evidence received in open court supporting the ruling.
• Whether the appropriate appellate remedy was reversal with directions to allow the case to proceed without payment of costs, rather than remand for further proceedings.

Rules Applied

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 governed the dispute. Under that rule, a party may proceed without advance payment of costs by filing a compliant statement of inability to afford payment of court costs. The rule also contemplates a defined procedure for contests, hearings, and review. The court of appeals treated Y.S.’s notice of appeal as a Rule 145 motion for review under Rule 145(f) and (g)(1), consistent with prior Texas authority construing similar filings liberally.

The court also relied on the broader access-to-courts principles reflected in the Texas Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion emphasized that Texas law has long protected the ability of indigent litigants to access the courts and cited authority recognizing that filing-fee requirements may violate due process when they operate as a practical barrier to being heard.

The governing standard was abuse of discretion. In this context, a trial court abuses its discretion when it departs from Rule 145’s procedural requirements or makes an ability-to-pay determination without an evidentiary basis in the record.

Application

The Eighth Court focused on two related defects: the absence of a proper evidentiary hearing and the absence of controverting evidence sufficient to overcome Y.S.’s sworn indigency showing. Y.S.’s statement was facially compliant and supported by benefit information, income information, asset disclosures, and monthly expenses that substantially exceeded the income figures identified in the record. That evidence was never meaningfully controverted through the process Rule 145 requires.

What appeared instead was an informal, off-record “interview process” involving the County Attorney’s Office. That process yielded information about alleged child-support receipts, a residence listed in appraisal records, and a roofing business, but none of that information was developed through testimony before the court on the record, and the appellate court had no reporter’s record because no hearing was actually recorded. The court of appeals treated that absence as significant. Rule 145 review depends on a record of the proceedings, and the trial court’s characterization of the event as an “oral evidentiary hearing” could not substitute for an actual evidentiary record.

Just as important, the trial court’s order did not explain how the cited information translated into a present ability to pay $400 in costs. Ownership of a residence did not necessarily establish available liquidity, especially where homestead interests are not ordinarily counted in the same way as disposable assets for indigency purposes. Nor did references to a business name or fragmentary payroll information resolve the question when Y.S. had also disclosed low cash on hand, modest earnings, and monthly expenses well above income. The appellate court therefore concluded that the record, as it existed, showed uncontroverted inability to pay rather than a basis for partial payment.

Holding

The court held that Y.S. established her inability to pay court costs through uncontroverted evidence. Her sworn Rule 145 statement, together with the supporting materials in the record, demonstrated financial circumstances sufficient to permit her to proceed without prepayment of fees, and nothing in a procedurally proper evidentiary form rebutted that showing.

The court further held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Y.S. to pay reduced costs without holding a proper hearing and without receiving evidence supporting that determination in open court. An off-record interview and attached documents were not an adequate substitute for the process contemplated by Rule 145.

Finally, the court held that reversal with directions—not remand—was the proper remedy. Because the existing record reflected uncontradicted evidence of inability to pay, the court directed the trial court to allow the name-change case to proceed without payment of court costs or fees.

Practical Application

For family-law practitioners, this case is less about minor name changes than about procedural rigor in indigency disputes. In divorce filings, SAPCRs, modifications, enforcements, adoptions, and family-violence-related matters, Rule 145 issues arise when a client cannot fund filing fees, issuance fees, service fees, or reporter’s costs at the outset. This opinion confirms that a trial court cannot compromise a litigant’s access to family-court relief by imposing an ad hoc “reduced fee” based on informal inquiry or untested assumptions about the client’s finances.

The case also matters strategically because family dockets often rely on informal case-management practices. This opinion is a strong appellate signal that informality has limits. If a court intends to deny full indigency status or require partial payment, the ruling must rest on a record capable of appellate review. For counsel, that means insisting on a formal hearing, requesting a court reporter, objecting to off-record factual development, and ensuring the client’s monthly expenses—not just gross or isolated income data—are part of the record. In many family cases, support received by or for a household, temporary employment, family contributions, and homestead ownership can be misleading indicators unless developed carefully and placed in context.

The opinion also gives advocates a framework for resisting trial-court reliance on nonliquid assets. Many family-law clients may have title to a vehicle, an inherited lot, or even a homestead, while still lacking the present ability to pay filing costs without foregoing necessities. This case supports the position that the inquiry remains ability to afford costs, not mere existence of some property interest.

Practically, when representing respondents or obligors opposing indigency, the lesson runs the other direction: if the client wants to challenge a Rule 145 statement, the challenge must be made procedurally and evidentially correctly. The non-prevailing side here effectively lost not because contrary facts were impossible to prove, but because the record did not contain them in the form Rule 145 requires.

Checklists

Preserving a Rule 145 Record in Family Cases

• File the Supreme Court–approved Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs with the initiating pleading.
• Ensure the statement is complete, sworn, and internally consistent.
• Attach supporting documents where available, including benefit letters, pay stubs, bank balances, and proof of recurring expenses.
• If a hearing is set, request that it be conducted on the record with the judge present.
• Confirm in advance that a court reporter will attend and record the proceeding.
• Object to off-record interviews, clerk conferences, coordinator questioning, or informal screening as a substitute for an evidentiary hearing.
• Make sure monthly expenses are admitted or otherwise reflected in the record, not just income.
• If the court signs an adverse order, calendar the Rule 145 review deadline immediately.

Building the Indigency Showing for a Family-Law Client

• Document all public benefits received by the client or dependents.
• Itemize take-home pay, not merely gross pay.
• Identify irregular or discontinued employment and provide dates.
• Explain whether child support is actually being received, in what amount, and with what consistency.
• Distinguish liquid assets from nonliquid or exempt assets.
• Address ownership of a homestead, including whether it produces any available cash flow.
• List ordinary monthly household expenses in detail.
• Include transportation, insurance, child-related expenses, and housing costs.
• Update the court promptly if employment or income changes after filing.

Challenging an Opponent’s Rule 145 Statement Properly

• File any contest in strict compliance with Rule 145 and applicable deadlines.
• Seek a formal evidentiary hearing rather than relying on informal court staff inquiries.
• Subpoena or obtain admissible records if income, support, or asset issues are disputed.
• Develop evidence showing present ability to pay costs, not merely theoretical asset ownership.
• Test the declarant’s claimed expenses with specific cross-examination.
• Create a complete reporter’s record for any anticipated appellate review.
• Request findings or a sufficiently detailed order tying evidence to the court’s ability-to-pay determination.

Avoiding Reversal When the Court Considers Reduced Costs

• Do not rely on off-record interviews with county personnel or court staff.
• Do not base the ruling solely on attachments that were never admitted through a proper hearing.
• Do not treat appraisal-district values as proof of available funds without further evidence.
• Do not ignore the declarant’s stated monthly expenses.
• Do not characterize a proceeding as an “oral evidentiary hearing” if no such hearing occurred on the record.
• Do not impose a reduced-cost figure without an evidentiary explanation for how that amount is affordable.

Citation

In the Matter of the Name Change of A.J.G., a Child, No. 08-26-00070-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 22, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~dfa599ff-4e38-4600-a05a-293b9d0c6905~~