Background
Lori Rocco sought a protective order against her daughter, Tiffani Bowden, alleging that Bowden had pushed her, threatened to kill her and her husband, sent threatening text messages, and committed other violent conduct. The trial court issued a temporary ex parte protective order and scheduled a final hearing.
Bowden, representing herself, received notice of the March 26, 2026 hearing but did not attend. Although she claimed that she was incarcerated at the time, she did not request a bench warrant, seek another continuance, or ask to appear remotely. After hearing Rocco’s testimony, the trial court found that family violence had occurred and entered a two-year protective order restricting Bowden’s conduct, communications, and proximity to Rocco and specified family members.
The Court’s Holding
The court of appeals affirmed. It held that Bowden failed to preserve her due-process complaint because she never requested a bench warrant or otherwise asked the trial court to provide access to the hearing. Her related request to set aside the order under the default-judgment standard was unavailable because she had not filed a motion for new trial.
The court also held that Bowden forfeited her unclean-hands and extrinsic-fraud arguments by failing to plead or present those affirmative defenses in the trial court and by relying on documents attached to her appellate brief that were not part of the record. Her legal-sufficiency challenge was inadequately briefed and therefore forfeited. In any event, Rocco’s testimony that Bowden had threatened to kill her and her husband—including testimony that Bowden pulled a knife on the husband—was legally sufficient because family violence includes qualifying threats, not only completed physical assaults.
Key Takeaways
- An incarcerated civil litigant must request a bench warrant or otherwise seek access to the hearing in the trial court to preserve a due-process complaint based on nonattendance.
- Affirmative defenses such as unclean hands and fraud must be pleaded and presented below, and documents attached only to an appellate brief are not part of the appellate record.
- A family-violence finding may rest on threats that reasonably place a family member in fear of imminent harm; proof of a completed physical assault is unnecessary.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that self-represented and incarcerated litigants remain subject to Texas rules governing preservation, pleading, briefing, and the appellate record. A party who knows of a hearing but cannot attend must timely ask the trial court for appropriate relief.
It also confirms that, under the current Texas Family Code, a protective order may be supported by evidence of qualifying threats and does not require a finding that family violence is likely to occur in the future.