In the Matter of the Marriage of Samantha RaeJon Downs and Ethan Sahen Downs and in the Interest of P.A.D. and Q.P.D., Children, 06-26-00008-CV, July 01, 2026.
On appeal from 6th District Court, Red River County, Texas
Synopsis
If the December 11, 2025 merits hearing functioned as the first trial setting, Rule 245 required at least forty-five days’ notice, and that requirement is grounded in constitutional due process. The Texarkana court held that, absent a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver, a party does not forfeit that complaint merely by failing to file or properly present a continuance motion; the remedy is reversal and remand.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion matters in divorce and SAPCR litigation because final hearings on conservatorship, possession, support, and related property issues cannot proceed on compressed notice if the setting is, in substance, the first trial setting. For family-law trial lawyers, Downs is a reminder that Rule 245 is not just a scheduling rule; it is a due-process rule that can undo a final decree even where the complaining party had actual notice of the hearing date, appeared imperfectly in the case, or failed to package the objection as a technically compliant continuance motion.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The divorce began in April 2025. The record reflected an early June 9, 2025 trial setting generated at the outset of the case, but the appellate court noted a critical evidentiary gap: nothing in the record showed that either party actually received that notice, and nothing explained what became of that setting. On appeal, neither side treated the June setting as operative. Instead, both litigants focused on a later merits setting.
The case then took a contentious turn. Father counter-petitioned in September 2025 and sought temporary orders. Mother attempted a nonsuit, but Father’s counter-petition kept the case alive. The trial court entered temporary orders after a September 8 hearing at which Mother contended she had no notice and was in California pursuing ex parte relief there. Mother later sought relief from those temporary orders and asserted lack of notice.
A subsequent October 14 hearing was set on Mother’s requested relief and possible modification of temporary orders. Mother did not appear, though counsel had entered an appearance. The trial court granted a continuance rather than denying her requested relief outright and again ordered the children returned to Father in Texas. After Mother did not comply, the court issued a writ of attachment.
The key event for appellate purposes occurred on December 2, 2025, when the trial court set a final hearing for December 11, 2025. Mother, through counsel, objected in writing, asserting that parties are entitled to forty-five days’ notice of a first trial setting, although the objection did not expressly cite Rule 245. Counsel then withdrew with court approval. On December 11, the trial court proceeded with the final hearing. Mother did not appear. Father testified, and the court later signed a final decree that resolved issues beyond the divorce itself, including child-related relief that Mother challenged on appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether Rule 245 required at least forty-five days’ notice before the December 11, 2025 final hearing because that setting functioned as the first trial setting.
- Whether the Rule 245 first-setting notice requirement is constitutional in dimension and therefore waivable only by a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver.
- Whether a party forfeits a complaint about inadequate Rule 245 notice by failing to file, verify, or properly present a motion for continuance.
- Whether reversal and remand are required when a final merits hearing in a contested family-law case proceeds without the notice Rule 245 guarantees.
Rules Applied
The court’s analysis centered on Rule 245 and the due-process cases construing it:
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 245: In a contested case, parties are entitled to reasonable notice of not less than forty-five days for a first trial setting.
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101, 119–20 (Tex. 2014): The Rule 245 notice protection is a matter of constitutional due process. Waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Failure to move for continuance does not, by itself, establish waiver or defeat appellate review.
- Highsmith v. Highsmith, 587 S.W.3d 771, 777–78 (Tex. 2019) (per curiam): Even where a prove-up may seem ministerial, a contested family-law matter cannot proceed to judgment without the notice required by Rule 245 and due process.
- Matter of Marriage of Guggenheim, No. 06-24-00033-CV, 2024 WL 4486180 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 15, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.): Failure to attend trial does not necessarily establish waiver of inadequate Rule 245 notice.
- Texas Family Code § 153.002(a) and In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445, 459 n.20 (Tex. 2013): The best interest of the child remains the paramount concern in conservatorship and possession litigation, reinforcing the need for a procedurally sound merits hearing in which both parents have a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965): The proper remedy for a due-process violation is to restore the affected party to the position she would have occupied had due process been observed initially.
Application
The court approached the case through a due-process lens rather than a mere error-preservation lens. Although the record contained an initial June 2025 setting, the court emphasized that the record did not show receipt of that notice and that the parties themselves litigated the appeal as though the December 11 hearing was the first meaningful trial setting. That posture mattered because Rule 245’s forty-five-day requirement applies to the first trial setting in a contested case.
From there, the court relied heavily on In re K.M.L. to reject the common argument that the complaining party must have filed a technically proper motion for continuance to preserve the issue. The court recognized that Texas practitioners often frame inadequate-notice complaints through continuance practice, but K.M.L. treats the underlying right as constitutional. That means the dispositive question is waiver, not whether counsel checked every procedural box under the continuance rules.
The record did not establish a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver by Mother. To the contrary, she objected in writing to the short setting and asserted entitlement to forty-five days’ notice. Even though the objection did not cite Rule 245 by name and even though Mother ultimately did not appear at the December 11 hearing, those facts did not amount to waiver under K.M.L. and Highsmith. A party’s absence from trial, standing alone, is not the same as an informed relinquishment of the constitutional right to adequate notice.
The court was also influenced by the family-law context. The opinion expressly noted that there had never been a hearing at which both parents appeared and testified regarding the children’s best interests. Because the final decree addressed conservatorship and related child-centered issues, proceeding to a final merits adjudication on inadequate first-setting notice created a particularly acute due-process problem. The court therefore concluded that the final judgment, insofar as it went beyond the uncontested grant of divorce, could not stand.
Holding
The court held that Rule 245’s forty-five-day notice requirement for a first trial setting is not merely procedural; it is an aspect of constitutional due process. As a result, the right may be waived only voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
The court further held that, absent such a waiver, a party does not forfeit an appellate complaint about inadequate notice of the first trial setting simply because she failed to file, verify, or properly present a motion for continuance. The lack of a compliant continuance motion is not itself a waiver of the constitutional notice right recognized in In re K.M.L.
Applying those principles, the court concluded that the December 11, 2025 final hearing could not support the portions of the final decree adjudicating issues other than the divorce itself if that hearing functioned as the first trial setting without Rule 245-compliant notice. The appropriate remedy was to affirm the divorce grant, reverse the remaining challenged portions of the final judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Practical Application
For family-law litigators, Downs should change how you think about trial-setting objections in contested divorces and SAPCR-heavy divorce cases. The first point is strategic: do not let opposing counsel or the court reduce a Rule 245 complaint to a narrow continuance defect. If the challenged hearing is the first merits setting, frame the issue expressly as constitutional notice under Rule 245, cite In re K.M.L., and make clear that no voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver has occurred.
Second, the case underscores the difference between actual notice and legally adequate notice. A party may know a hearing is set nine days out and still retain a valid due-process complaint if that hearing is, functionally, the first trial setting. In fast-moving custody disputes, that distinction matters. Temporary-orders urgency does not automatically justify compressing notice for the final merits adjudication.
Third, Downs is especially important where a trial court has managed a case through emergency hearings, enforcement requests, writ practice, or temporary orders and then moves quickly to a final hearing. Lawyers should not assume that prior appearances, docket activity, or the client’s noncompliance with temporary orders will cure a defective first trial setting. Misconduct may affect merits, credibility, sanctions, or temporary relief, but it does not itself eliminate the constitutional entitlement to adequate notice before the first final trial setting.
Fourth, on the plaintiff’s side, this case is a warning against overreaching on shortened settings. A decree obtained on inadequate first-setting notice is unstable, particularly where conservatorship and possession findings are involved. If you want a durable judgment, build a clean Rule 245 record rather than relying on the opponent’s absence or on technical defects in the opponent’s continuance papers.
A few concrete practice points follow:
- When objecting to a short trial setting, expressly state that:
- the setting is the first trial setting, or functions as such;
- Rule 245 requires at least forty-five days’ notice;
- the right is constitutional under In re K.M.L.;
- the client does not waive that right voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently.
- When seeking to uphold a decree, make a record showing:
- an earlier valid first setting with proof of service or receipt; or
- a clear waiver that meets the constitutional standard.
- In child-related final hearings, remind the court that best-interest determinations are especially vulnerable to reversal if one parent is deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate through adequate notice.
- Do not assume that a party’s failure to appear, prior pro se missteps, or defective continuance practice will save a judgment from reversal.
Checklists
Preserving a Rule 245 Notice Complaint
- Confirm whether the challenged hearing is truly the first trial setting or the first operative merits setting.
- Review the clerk’s record for proof of service, transmittal, or receipt of any earlier trial notices.
- File a written objection immediately upon receiving a short setting.
- Cite Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 245 expressly.
- Cite In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101, 119–20 (Tex. 2014).
- State that the right to forty-five days’ notice is grounded in constitutional due process.
- State that the client does not voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently waive that right.
- Request that the court reset the matter outside the forty-five-day window.
- If possible, obtain a written ruling or make a reporter’s-record objection.
- Even if filing a continuance motion, do not rely on continuance language alone; preserve the due-process framing.
Defending Against Reversal When You Want to Keep the Trial Setting
- Establish with record support that a prior setting was the true first trial setting.
- Ensure the record shows service or actual receipt of the earlier notice.
- Distinguish temporary-orders hearings from final merits settings.
- If asserting waiver, develop a record showing an express, informed waiver by the opposing party.
- Avoid relying solely on the opponent’s nonappearance.
- Avoid relying solely on defects in verification, presentation, or form of a continuance request.
- Be cautious about proceeding to final adjudication after emergency custody or enforcement proceedings on abbreviated timelines.
Preparing a Durable Final Hearing in Divorce and Custody Cases
- Confirm the case is contested for Rule 245 purposes.
- Give at least forty-five days’ notice of the first final trial setting.
- Serve all counsel and unrepresented parties in a manner that can be proven in the record.
- File the notice of setting so it appears clearly in the clerk’s record.
- If a prior setting was passed, document what happened to it.
- Clarify on the record whether the hearing is temporary, interlocutory, or final.
- Before proceeding, ask the court to confirm its basis for finding Rule 245 satisfied.
- In cases involving conservatorship, possession, and support, ensure both parents have a meaningful opportunity to present best-interest evidence.
Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problems
- Do not assume a general objection is enough; identify Rule 245 specifically.
- Do not let counsel withdraw without a clear plan to protect the trial-setting objection.
- Do not skip the final hearing if appearance is possible; attendance can help preserve the record and limit damage.
- Do not focus exclusively on temporary-order irregularities if the final judgment is the practical target of appeal.
- Do not omit controlling authority from briefing; K.M.L. and Highsmith should be front and center.
- Do not treat actual notice as equivalent to constitutionally adequate first-setting notice.
Citation
In the Matter of the Marriage of Samantha RaeJon Downs and Ethan Sahen Downs and in the Interest of P.A.D. and Q.P.D., Children, No. 06-26-00008-CV (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 1, 2026, mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~7a044d85-4b3b-49e3-81af-9182c02b2fa4~~
Share this content: