Background
Dazie Diaz and Valente Ramirez Avila each sought sole managing conservatorship of their four-year-old child, R.R., who has several significant medical and developmental conditions. Diaz alleged that Avila had abused or medically neglected R.R. and had engaged in intimidation and property damage during the parents’ relationship. Avila denied harming the child, and a Department of Family and Protective Services investigator testified that allegations against him had been ruled out without restrictions on his access to R.R.
The trial court instead appointed both parents joint managing conservators, established a week-on, week-off possession schedule, gave each parent certain independent decision-making rights, and ordered neither parent to pay child support. Diaz appealed, challenging an alleged inaccuracy in the reporter’s record, the conservatorship and possession rulings, and the absence of accommodations related to her self-disclosed autism diagnosis and trauma-related behaviors.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Diaz did not use the prescribed trial-court process to challenge the reporter’s record and that the single disputed pronoun in the investigator’s testimony would not affect the appeal because the trial court remained free to weigh that testimony against the other evidence.
The court also held that the joint-conservatorship order, alternating-week possession schedule, and allocation of independent parental rights were within the trial court’s discretion. The evidence concerning abuse, medical neglect, therapy attendance, and intimidation was disputed, and the trial court could credit Avila’s testimony and the investigator’s findings. Because no findings of fact were requested or issued, the appellate court implied the findings necessary to support the judgment.
Finally, the court held that Diaz did not preserve her due-process complaint. Although represented by counsel, she made no request for an accommodation or procedural modification and did not identify what accommodation the trial court should have provided. The court therefore assumed without deciding that such a right might exist but concluded that nothing had been preserved for appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- A party disputing the accuracy of a Texas reporter’s record ordinarily must seek correction through the trial court under the applicable appellate procedure.
- Conflicting evidence about abuse, neglect, and parental fitness generally falls within the trial court’s credibility determinations in conservatorship and possession disputes.
- A disability-related due-process claim is not preserved when the party never requests an accommodation or obtains a trial-court ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the substantial deference Texas appellate courts give trial judges in fact-intensive child-custody disputes, particularly when witness credibility is central and no findings of fact are requested. An appellate court will not reweigh conflicting testimony merely because one parent characterizes the evidence differently.
It also highlights two preservation requirements: parties should promptly invoke the formal process for correcting an appellate record and must specifically request any disability-related accommodation needed at trial.