Tuan Anh Tran v. Sheryn D. Nguyen
480 S.W.3d 119, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12016, 2015 WL 7475221 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying a parent convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a stepchild specific possession or access to biological children, and may calculate child support and divide community property in a manner serving the children's best interest, even if it deviates from guidelines, especially when the obligor parent is incarcerated.
Facts:
- Tuan Anh Tran and Sheryn D. Nguyen began holding themselves out as married in October 1998.
- They had two daughters together, K.N. and P.T.; Nguyen also had an older daughter, J.T., from a previous relationship.
- In 2010, Tran and Nguyen separated after Tran's crime was revealed.
- In 2012, Tran pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting J.T. when she was thirteen years old and was sentenced to twelve years in prison.
- Prior to his incarceration, Tran was a banker earning an average annual salary between $55,000 and $70,000.
- Nguyen testified that the younger children (K.N. and P.T.) were aware of the nature of Tran's crime and did not wish to communicate with or visit him in prison.
- The community property home appraised for $290,000, and Nguyen had been paying the mortgage, insurance, and taxes during their separation.
- Tran had given Nguyen $18,000 in checks for 'general family support' since their separation.
Procedural Posture:
- Sheryn D. Nguyen filed a petition for divorce in the trial court (court of first instance).
- Tuan Anh Tran filed a counter-petition for divorce in the trial court.
- The trial court granted the divorce based on Tran's felony conviction for sexually assaulting J.T.
- The trial court named Sheryn D. Nguyen sole managing conservator of K.N. and P.T. and Tuan Anh Tran possessory conservator, but limited his rights to emergency medical situations.
- The trial court denied Tuan Anh Tran specific possession of or access to the children, finding it was not in their best interest due to his conviction for family violence.
- The trial court entered a protective order against Tuan Anh Tran.
- The trial court calculated Tuan Anh Tran's child support obligation and awarded Sheryn D. Nguyen Tuan Anh Tran's share of the community property home equity as a lump sum child support payment.
- The trial court divided the community property, awarding Sheryn D. Nguyen the vehicles and assigning debts and other personal property to the party in possession or whose name the debt was held.
- The trial court ordered Tuan Anh Tran to make additional payments for the children's medical support.
- The trial court denied Tuan Anh Tran's oral motion for continuance.
- Tuan Anh Tran appealed the final decree of divorce to the Court of Appeals 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 a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a parent convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a stepchild specific possession or access to his biological children, calculating child support based on pre-incarceration income and awarding a lump sum from property equity, and making a disproportionate property division, where the parent is incarcerated for the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Martha Hill, Jamison, Justice
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tran visitation, calculating child support, or dividing property. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tran's oral motion for continuance on the day of trial, as he had 74 days to obtain counsel and had filed his own pleadings without indicating difficulty, and failed to demonstrate the delay was not due to his own fault or negligence. Regarding possession and access, the trial court appropriately denied Tran specific visitation with his biological daughters (K.N. and P.T.). Texas Family Code § 153.004(c) requires courts to consider the commission of family violence or sexual abuse when determining parental possession rights. Given Tran's guilty plea and conviction for aggravated sexual assault of his stepdaughter, and the biological children's awareness of the crime and reluctance to visit, the trial court reasonably concluded that specified access was not in the children's best interest. For child support, the trial court did not err in calculating Tran's obligation or awarding Nguyen his share of the home equity as a lump sum payment. While Tran argued for a minimum wage presumption due to incarceration, child support decisions prioritize the child's best interest, and courts may deviate from guidelines if their application would be unjust or inappropriate, considering factors such as the children's needs, parents' ability to contribute, and available financial resources (Tex. Fam. Code § 154.123). Nguyen testified to the children's need for support, Tran's likely unemployment during their minority, and her 100% possession, making his home equity a reasonable financial resource for a lump-sum award. Tran's claims of fraud by Nguyen lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Lastly, the trial court's division of community property was not an abuse of discretion. Courts have wide discretion to divide community property in a 'just and right' manner, and can consider fault in the breakup of the marriage. Tran's calculation of Nguyen receiving 99.6% of assets was incorrect, as the court awarded personal belongings in possession and Tran's equity interest in the home, which was then re-awarded as child support, to Nguyen. The award of vehicles to Nguyen was also within the court's discretion given Tran's incarceration. Tran's challenge to the decree's consistency with oral rendition failed due to lack of proper argument and citations.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the broad discretion afforded to Texas trial courts in family law matters, particularly when a parent has committed serious family violence or sexual abuse. It underscores that the 'best interest of the child' standard can justify the complete denial of a parent's visitation rights, even for biological children not directly victimized by the specific crime, especially when the children are aware of the abuse. The ruling also provides important guidance on the flexibility of child support orders, allowing for lump-sum payments from property equity to fulfill obligations for incarcerated parents, prioritizing the children's financial stability. The dissent, however, highlights a procedural tension regarding the necessity of explicit findings when a trial court deviates from statutory child support guidelines, suggesting an area where future cases might demand more rigorous documentation from trial courts.
