Background
Yasir Ahmed and Beenish Khurram filed competing divorce petitions in 2021. A jury found grounds for divorce in June 2023 but deadlocked on which parent should designate their two children’s primary residence and on related geographic restrictions. Litigation continued, and the trial court issued several rulings adverse to Khurram, including partial no-evidence summary judgments, an order requiring a mental examination, and sanctions striking her live pleading and jury demand after she repeatedly refused to undergo the examination.
The case was retried to the bench on August 13, 2024. Although the record showed that Khurram had actual notice, she did not appear. The final decree appointed the parents joint managing conservators and gave Ahmed the right to designate the children’s primary residence within Harris County or contiguous counties. Khurram, proceeding without counsel, appealed the decree and numerous pretrial and post-trial rulings.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. Khurram’s attempted interlocutory appeals did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction or stay the Family Code proceeding, and merely filing a motion to stay in the appellate court did not suspend the trial. The record also established that Khurram received adequate notice of the bench trial, so trying the case in her absence did not violate due process. Although the trial court’s oral pronouncement named Ahmed sole managing conservator, the written decree appointing both parents joint managing conservators controlled.
The court rejected Khurram’s trial-evidence challenges because she did not provide the portion of the reporter’s record needed to review them, requiring the appellate court to presume the evidence supported the decree. Her failure to appear at trial waived complaints that earlier rulings improperly restricted the affirmative claims she could present. Challenges to temporary orders became moot after final judgment, the agreed contempt order and adverse rulings did not establish judicial bias requiring recusal, and the appellate record contained no post-trial motions or rulings adequate for review.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory appeal in a Texas Family Code suit does not automatically stay trial-court proceedings, and filing a stay motion likewise creates no stay without court action.
- A party who has notice but fails to appear for trial waives the opportunity to present affirmative claims and cannot complain that earlier rulings limited claims the party ultimately presented no evidence to support.
- Without the necessary reporter’s record, an appellate court presumes that the evidence admitted at trial supported the trial court’s findings.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the procedural consequences of not appearing for a properly noticed family-law trial and of failing to supply a complete appellate record. Even numerous asserted errors will not produce reversal when claims are waived, temporary-order disputes are moot, or the record is inadequate to evaluate the alleged harm.
It also confirms that a written civil judgment controls over a conflicting oral pronouncement and that adverse rulings or enforcement measures, without evidence of extreme favoritism or antagonism, do not establish judicial bias.