Lewelling v. Lewelling
1990 WL 134752, 796 S.W.2d 164 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To overcome the strong legal presumption that a child's best interest is served by awarding custody to a natural parent, a nonparent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that specific actions or omissions by the parent would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development. Evidence that a parent is a victim of spousal abuse, has limited financial resources, or has past, resolved mental health issues is, by itself, insufficient to meet this standard.
Facts:
- Brenda Lewelling was married to Billy Lewelling, with whom she had one son, Jesse.
- Throughout their relationship and during her pregnancy, Billy physically abused Brenda, leading to several hospitalizations for her injuries.
- Brenda initiated divorce proceedings against Billy.
- During the marriage, Brenda was twice a patient at a state hospital; one visit resulted in her release within 24 hours, and on the other, she was told she did not need to be there.
- Following an incident where Billy beat her, he took Jesse to the home of his parents, Carl and Melba Lewelling, where the child stayed for approximately two months.
- After filing for divorce, Brenda was unemployed, had little money, and lived in a small house with her mother and other family members.
- Carl and Melba Lewelling, the child's paternal grandparents, sought to be named the child's managing conservators.
- Brenda continued to see Billy after the divorce filing when he came to visit their son, Jesse, and testified she might consider reconciliation if he sought counseling.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Lewelling filed for divorce from Billy Lewelling in trial court and sought to be named managing conservator of their child, Jesse.
- The paternal grandparents, Carl and Melba Lewelling, intervened in the suit, seeking to be named managing conservators.
- The trial court initially awarded temporary custody to the Department of Human Services, which placed the child with Brenda.
- Following a final hearing, the trial court named the grandparents as managing conservators, finding that appointing Brenda would significantly impair the child's health and development.
- Brenda Lewelling, the appellant, appealed this decision to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding there was some evidence to support its conclusion.
- Brenda Lewelling then appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that a parent is a victim of spousal abuse, is unemployed with limited financial resources, and has had two brief, past hospitalizations for mental health constitute legally sufficient evidence that her appointment as managing conservator would significantly impair her child's physical health or emotional development under Texas Family Code § 14.01(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Doggett
No, such evidence does not constitute legally sufficient evidence that the parent's appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development. Under the heightened standard of Texas Family Code § 14.01(b), a nonparent must prove with specific evidence of the parent's acts or omissions that awarding custody to the parent would result in physical or emotional harm to the child. The court held that being a victim of spousal abuse is no evidence of impairment and that public policy precludes penalizing a battered parent. Likewise, poverty, crowded living conditions, and past, brief hospitalizations that did not indicate ongoing mental instability do not meet the high threshold of showing significant impairment.
Concurring - Justice Cook
No. I concur with the majority that the legislature established a bright-line test requiring proof of significant impairment to overcome the parental presumption. There was no evidence that Brenda Lewelling was anything but a good mother who loved and cared for her child. A parent should not lose custody because they care for an elderly parent, live with other family members, or have been the victim of repeated spousal abuse. Awarding custody to the grandparents, with whom the abusive son often lived, would effectively reward the abuser and his family for the abuse inflicted on the mother.
Dissenting - Justice Gonzalez
Yes. The best interest of the child remains the paramount consideration, and the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the evidence and witnesses. The appellate court should not reweigh the evidence. There was some evidence (more than a scintilla) to support the trial court's finding that the mother's unstable environment—including her emotional problems, other family members' issues, and her pattern of returning to an abusive relationship—would significantly impair the child's emotional health. The majority improperly adds a requirement that the impairment must be due to a direct 'act or omission' of the parent, which is not in the statute.
Dissenting - Justice Hecht
No. I agree with the majority that there is no evidence on the record to support the trial court's decision under the 'significant impairment' standard. However, the case should not be reversed and rendered in favor of the mother. Because two years have passed while the case was on appeal, which is a long time in the life of a young child, the case should be remanded to the trial court in the interest of justice to determine the child's best interest based on current circumstances, rather than blindly ordering a change in custody.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the parental presumption in Texas custody disputes between a parent and a nonparent. It clarified that the 'significant impairment' standard in the Texas Family Code is a high evidentiary bar, requiring proof of specific conduct by the parent that would harm the child. The case establishes a crucial precedent that characteristics often associated with victims of domestic violence or poverty cannot, by themselves, be used to strip a natural parent of custody. This ruling provides greater protection for parents, especially vulnerable ones, against custody challenges from non-parents who might offer a more financially stable environment but cannot prove the parent would actually harm the child.
