Same-Sex Marriage in Texas: A Constellation of Benefits?

In June of 2015, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges which dramatically challenged and overturned the status quo regarding marriage throughout the United States, and particularly in Texas, by declaring that, “The Constitution . . . does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” Among the reasons for the decision, the Court cited that “same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens.” Among the “constellation of benefits” cited by the Court are property rights, hospital access, adoption rights, worker’s compensation benefits, and health insurance, among others.

Following the Obergefell opinion, many states – Texas included – found that their pre-existing structures for providing spousal benefits had to be adapted to account for the possibility of same-sex marriage. One such case arose out of Arkansas. In Arkansas, as in most states, when a woman in an opposite-sex marriage gives birth, her husband’s name is placed on the birth certificate as the child’s father, unless the woman, her husband, and the child’s actual biological father all swear that the husband is definitely not the child’s father.

After the legalization of same-sex marriage, however, married lesbian women who gave birth found that their spouses were not listed on their child’s birth certificate, despite their request that their wives be listed as legal parents. In Pavan v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional, noting that the decision not to list a mother’s female spouse on her child’s birth certificate “denied married same-sex couples access to the ‘constellation of benefits that the state has linked to marriage.’”

One interpretation of Pavan v. Smith is that states may not deny benefits to same-sex couples that they extend to opposite-sex couples. In Texas, however, the Texas Supreme Court has taken a different interpretation – namely, that each benefit must be individually reviewed and decided on a case-by-case basis. In late 2013, the City of Houston began making spousal benefits available to city employees’ same-sex spouses where the couples had married outside of Texas. That same year, a citizen sued to challenge the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses; Obergefell was decided while the suit was still being litigated. Ultimately, four days after the decision Pavan was issued, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Obergefell did not hold that states “must provide the same publicly funded benefits to all married persons.” The Texas Supreme Court did not, however, address Pavan in their decision.

At current, it remains unclear whether, in Texas, same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits as opposite-sex couples. Pavan v. Smith implies that they are, but the Texas Supreme Court has held otherwise, and there are several statutes still on the books in Texas that limit same-sex couples’ rights to the benefits of marriage that opposite-sex couples have access to, such as the right to have both spouses named on an original or amended birth certificate, or the right to receive spousal benefits when one spouse works for the Texas government at any level.

 

Written by: Nita Hight

Pets: Property or Part of the Family?

Divorces are usually an emotional roller-coaster for both parties. Not only are the parties parting ways, but they might also be parting with property. But what happens when that “property” is part of the family?

Family units keep evolving and therefore so should the law. More and more couples opt for pets instead of children or pets first, then maybe children. These pets then become part of the family or are seen as an additional child. But if this pet is more than just “property” what happens to it during a dissolution of marriage? There is not a Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship (“SAPCR”) for pets like there is for children. So then how do you “split” a pet when both parties have an interest in keeping it?

There are currently, 3 states in the U.S. that have adopted custody laws that allow judges to consider the best interest of the animal. This means that judges in Alaska, Illinois, and California won’t simply consider the pet a piece of property any longer but may determine who can keep the family pet. Animals feel pain and love and as such should have their best interest taken into consideration. When making a decision, judges may take into consideration factors that could affect the welfare and well-being of the pet such as who cares for, trains, walks/plays with it, and whether one neglects or even mistreats the animal. There are also protection orders, commonly used in domestic violence cases, that can be put in place while the divorce is pending.

Current California law AB 2274 was signed on September 27, 2018 and went into effect on January 1, 2019, specifically, it provides for joint custody of pets. Before, animals were not treated differently than inanimate objects, but AB 2274 now differentiates companion animals from other types of property. Although these animals are still classified as personal property, California law is adapting to the way people view pets as family. Would this then mean that in the future enforceable pet support and medical support and decisions could also be in play?

It is likely that these states will provide guidance and encouragement for other states to incorporate similar laws involving the best interest of pets. Unfortunately, the current laws only apply to divorce proceedings and not to roommates.

Once an animal is welcomed into a home and becomes part of the family, it is difficult for someone to accept that they might have to part ways from it. Families build meaningful relationships with pets that should be taken into consideration during the dissolution of a marriage. Family units keep evolving and therefore so should the law.

Written by: Jaqueline Obregon

Exercising To Cope With The Post-Divorce Blues

Divorces can often times be messy. A divorce can, for many people, be one of the most stressful times in a person’s life. Regardless of how emotionally invested you are in a dissolving relationship, it is important to take care of both your physical and mental health.

When grappling with stress, people may turn to food, drugs, alcohol, or even complete isolation. Although many vices may help cope with stress, all of them are not healthy. There is, however, one beneficial way that is proven to help alleviate stress and improve your overall well-being. Physical exercise!

In addition to helping quell some of life’s stresses, exercise helps in the following ways:

  • Improved respiration, cardiac output, and vascular system;
  • Increased muscular strength, endurance, and bone density;
  • Improved flexibility;
  • Improved digestion and bowel function;
  • Improved sensory skills;
  • Decreased stress, insomnia, and depression;
  • Increased social interaction;

During the Fall 2019 semester, the legal clinics participated in Zumba classes hosted on campus at SMU. Participants were asked about their stress levels both before and after participating in Zumba. All student participants reported that they had high stress levels (mostly due to the rigors of law school), but were much more at ease and relaxed after each class. Each participant remarked on the benefits of exercise with Zumba, and stated that they would like to take up Zumba more regularly as a means to tackle stress in their lives.

Our physical and emotional health should always be a priority, but these warrant special attention during difficult life events such as a divorce. Remember that you are always in control, and that your circumstances need not hold you captive. Take care of yourself, good people.

Written By: Trenton Patterson, 3L chief counsel in the SMU VanSickle Family Law Clinic.

2018’s Impact on Child Support Payments

Two major changes to the Texas Family Code’s (TFC) child support provisions went into effect on September 1, 2018.  These changes impact parents ordered to make child support payments, as well as parents seeking to change their current child support agreements.

Dental Insurance Coverage

The TFC requires that the person who pays child support (obligor) is responsible for providing the child with health insurance.  Although obligors could cover dental insurance prior to the 2018 modifications, it was not a requirement.  The recent modification to the TFC now requires the obligor to pay for all or part of the child’s dental insurance as well.  Fortunately for obligors, this expense may be deducted from their total monthly resources available for child support.

Restricting Modification Criteria

Before the changes went into effect, the TFC stipulated that courts could change child support agreements under the following circumstances:

  • Where the marital status, financial situation, or general circumstances of the child or either parent significantly changed since the child support agreement was initially ordered.
  • Whether divorced or divorcing parents reconciled child support payments through mediation or another administrative legal proceeding.
  • The amount of child support paid departs from what the TFC stipulates by at least 20% or $100.

Likely the most significant change to the TFC guidelines is that modification cannot be based on the third circumstance.  Consequently, courts can only modify these child support agreements if the circumstances of the individual affected by the order have substantially changed since the date the order was issued.

Conclusion

These new child support provisions will be applied prospectively.  For child custody orders placed after September 1, 2018, courts will require that dental insurance be provided under the medical support portion of child support orders.  Finally, parents who attempt to modify child support orders after September 1, 2018 are subject to restricted reasons for obtaining a modification.

Written by: Jordan Williams

With the ICWA Hanging in the Balance, How will the Native American Children of Texas be Affected

On October 4, 2018, United States District Judge Reed O’Connor declared that several provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) are unconstitutional. One provision deemed to be unconstitutional ensures that “in any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a place with: (1) a member of the child’s extended family;(2) other members of the Indian child’s tribe; or (3) other Indian families.” 25 U.S.C.S. § 1915. This battle began a year ago when Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, and several individuals filed suit requesting that courts declare named sections of the ICWA to be unconstitutional.  Several tribes including the Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, and Quinalt Nation, responded to this suit. In the aftermath of Judge O’Connor’s determination, the same tribes are requesting a stay that would delay the implementation of his ruling until an appeal is heard.

 

 

How did we get to this point? According to congressional findings at the time of the ICWA’s passage in 1978 an “alarmingly high” percentage of Indian families were disrupted by the “often unwarranted” removal of children by nontribal entities. 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901. At the time some studies listed the number of Indian children removed from their families as 25%-35%.  Congress further noted that States often “fail to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.” 25 U.S.C.S. § 1901.  Fast forward forty years to the present day and states are claiming that the child custody provisions of ICWA offer Native Americans preferential treatment and violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution.

How could this affect Native-American children in Texas? In response to this ruling several Indian Nations submitted a brief to the Court essentially requesting a pause on implementation of repeal until an appeal is heard. In their brief they reported potentially devastating consequences. Among these consequences were the loss of statutory rights in state proceedings.  This could mean that Indian parents no longer receive notice before parental-rights termination proceedings are initiated, they may also lose their right to challenge child placement in these proceedings. Ultimately, the Nations assert that the same problems that Congress intended to solve by enacting ICWA would be exasperated by its repeal.

Increasing Awareness of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is more complicated and prevalent than most would think. Just this past April, a man was caught on camera physically assaulting his girlfriend late at night in a Dallas neighborhood. In addition to the beatings that could be seen in the footage, the police report also stated that the boyfriend “banged the victim’s head against the floor several times, had his hand pressed against victim’s throat holding her head against the floor, and choked her.” Despite the incredibly gruesome act, the woman did not press charges. This highlights the depth and complexity of abusive relationships.

In Texas, “Family Violence” is defined as “an act by a member of a family or household against another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself.” The definition also includes child abuse and dating violence.

A finding of family violence by a Texas court has a number of implications. Chiefly, victims of family violence are entitled to a protective order, which could protect the individuals victims or any children relevant to the aggressor. However, exposing domestic violence is not always so simple, and it often goes unreported. Women often feel trapped in violent relationships because they fear that consequences would be worse if they reported the activity. An aggressor could come back for the woman after serving his time, for example. And while the victims of domestic violence are often female, it affects countless males as well.

Approximately 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime. Moreover, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. About 1 in 15 children are exposed to intimate partner violence each year, and 90% of these children are also eyewitnesses to this violence. Clearly, this issue is more widespread than one might think.

It is important to have open discussions about this topic, so that individuals everywhere know that they deserve better, and are not alone. Overall, it is clear that we need to make people aware of the resources they have to help them achieve freedom. If you or someone you know might be a victim of domestic violence, please see the following resources:

National Domestic Violence Hotline

1 (800) 799-7233

Genesis Women’s Shelter

4411 Lemmon Ave #201, Dallas, TX 75219

1 (214) 389-7700

www.genesisshelter.org

The Family Place

1 (214) 941-1991

www.familyplace.org

Emergency Shelter for Both Women and Men available

 

Written By: Andrea Hunter

Non-Parent? No Problem

In order to bring a suit seeking conservatorship or visitation of a child, the Texas Family Code requires individuals to have standing to file a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (“SAPCR”). Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.003 (West). On June 15, 2018, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a hotly contested issue regarding when a nonparent has standing under Texas Family Code Section 102.003(9). In Interest of H.S., 550 S.W.3d 151 (Tex. 2018).

Nonparents who have had “actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months” qualify for standing under this statute. Additionally, during this six month period the nonparent must have shared a principal residence with the child. In determining exactly who this statute applies to, the Court examined the plain meaning of “actual care” and “actual control.”

In family law cases, the word “care” means the “provision of physical or psychological comfort to another.” As such, a nonparent is taking, “actual care” of a child when he or she takes daily responsibility for ensuring that the child is fed, clothed, and emotionally nurtured. In In re H.S., the fact that the child’s grandparents paid for her food, clothes, and daycare indicated they were the child’s primary caregivers, and therefore were taking actual care of their grandchild.

The word “control” is commonly defined as “the power or authority to manage, direct, or oversee.” Therefore, a nonparent is exercising “actual control” over a child when he or she consistently makes the kinds of day-to-day decisions associated with raising a child. These kinds of decisions include when the child gets up and goes to bed, how much television the child watches, whether the child gets dessert, and when the child needs to go to the doctor.

The statute does not require the nonparent to have ultimate legal authority to control the child. There is also no requirement that the child’s parents need to have wholly ceded or relinquished their own parental rights and responsibilities. This is because the statute focuses on the nonparent’s role in the child’s life, rather than the actions and conduct of the child’s parents.

In short, a nonparent has standing under the Family Code to file a SAPCR seeking conservatorship of a child if, for the requisite six-month time period, the nonparent served in a parent-like role by (1) sharing a principal residence with the child; (2) providing for the child’s daily physical and psychological needs; and (3) exercising guidance, governance, and direction similar to that typically exercised on a day-to-day basis by parents with their children. The Court’s decision to employ this new standard will simplify the process for determining whether or not someone can bring this type of suit. This interpretation of the Family Code’s standing statute will help individuals other than a child’s parents to get a foot in the door and have a chance at their day in court.

Written by: Jordan Williams

Pre-Nuptial Prisons

Pre-nuptial agreements (often called “pre-nups”) have likely been controversial since their inception.  When many people think about pre-nuptial agreements, they envision a document that essentially prepares a couple to divorce before they get married. The picture is often painted that a pre-nuptial agreement is a backup plan, which prompts a discussion about love, and whether those that are truly in love should ever plan for divorce. Pre-nuptial agreements, however, aren’t necessarily plans for “when we divorce”, but helps set things in order in the event of a divorce before possible animosity sets in. Yet, many people have questions concerning pre-nups. What if you change your mind after you get married? What if you later realize that something is unfair or was not initially disclosed to you? What if you did not get a pre-nup before you got married, but desire something similar now that you are married? The answers to these questions and more are below.

Pre-nuptial agreements are discussed in chapter four of the Texas Family Code (TFC). They are officially defined as agreements between prospective spouses that are made before marriage intended to impact marriage (TFC 4.001).  In order to be valid, a pre-marital agreement must: be a writing, signed by both parties who have received (or had an opportunity to receive) a full disclosure of the other party’s financial standing. Furthermore, if the agreement deals with a party’s land, it must be notarized (TFC 4.002). Under TFC 4.003, a variety of things can be included in a pre-marital agreement, including, but not limited to: each person’s rights concerning either or both of their properties, the right to manage & control (buy, sell, use, mortgage, etc.) property, disposition (who will get what in the event of divorce or death), spousal support (or an agreement to not have spousal support), death benefits in life insurance policies, a required creation of a will or trust, and child support (though it cannot be reduced below the guideline standards). Couples have the option to include other provisions in their agreements, as long as they do not violate public policy.

Why would a couple desire a pre-marital agreement? What purpose does it serve? Well, there are a variety of reasons and purposes. These agreements can set or eliminate alimony obligations, set each parties rights & duties in a marriage, preserve inheritances for children that were from a prior relationship, or determine what property belongs to which party. Pre-marital agreements can also provide tax clarifications. For example, it can determine how taxes will be filed during the marriage, and who will be responsible for any liabilities.

Couples also have the option to revoke or amend their pre-marital agreement during their marriage through a written agreement signed by both parties (TFC 4.005). However, it’s important to remember that if the couple never marries, the agreement never takes effect. If, during the marriage, a party decides that they want to contest the pre-marital agreement, they have the option to do so during the first four years of their marriage, by pleading one of the defenses listed in TFC 4.006: unconscionability or involuntary execution. An agreement that is unconscionable is essentially one that is unfair, or weighs heavily on one party. If a party can prove that an agreement is unconscionable if before they signed it, they: did not receive fair or full information concerning all of the other party’s property or financial condition, did not voluntarily or expressly waive a right to get this information, and did not know (and could not have known) the information regarding the other party’s finances or property. The other defense, involuntary execution, requires proof that the pleading party did not sign the agreement voluntarily, because of the advice of counsel (or lack thereof), misrepresentation, the amount of information provided, or the significance of the information that was withheld.

Sometimes, circumstances in a marriage may change (for better or worse), and parties who initially did not have a pre-marital agreement may desire one after they have said their vows. In these instances, couples have the option of creating a post-marital agreement, which can convert separate property (property owned by a party before marriage or inherited during the marriage) into community property (property of both parties equally), and vice versa.

Every marriage is different, and couples are free to decide what is best for them. However, without these agreements, Texas will make various presumptions concerning a couple’s property, spousal support, and child support in the event of a death or divorce. Whatever the decision, and whenever it is made, there are options for couples that empower them to make their own decisions concerning their marital property and its classification. It is your property; you and your spouse have the power to determine who has power over it!

Written by: Valencia Campbell

Tyga vs. Travis: Who’s Your Daddy?

On February 1, Kylie Jenner gave birth to her first daughter, Stormi – and as with all things Kardashian, her pregnancy didn’t end without a juicy scandal. Kylie’s long-time ex, Tyga, recently made a few bold statements claiming Stormi is his daughter and demanded Kylie take a paternity test. Although the couple split in early April of last year – ten months prior to the birth – Tyga claims the two were sexually active as recently as nine months ago. If true, this makes a plausible case that Tyga is Stormi’s biological father. The only issue: Kylie is currently dating rapper Travis Scott, who she claims is the true father. This sets the stage for a turbulent battle for parental rights if Tyga makes good on his claim of paternity. So how might Tyga go about seeking parental rights for Stormi?

For purposes of this hypothetical, we will assume all parties are residents of Texas and their dispute will be governed under Texas law. In order to establish paternity, Tyga has three possible avenues to take. First, he may fill out an Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) at one of many field offices of the Office of the Attorney General Child Support Division, the local birth registrar, or any other certified entity. An AOP is a legal form admitting to biological paternity of a child and with it comes both rights and duties. Tyga stands to be granted rights such as possession of and access to Stormi, but also stands to bear duties such as the payment of child and medical support. Although this is one of the cheapest and simplest routes to establish paternity, there is one major drawback for Tyga: Kylie Jenner must also sign the AOP. For most this is not an issue, but Kylie is unlikely to consent to Tyga’s AOP when she has so ardently asserted that Travis Scott is Stormi’s  true father. Unfortunately, Tyga must take one of the two remaining avenues to establish paternity.

Tyga’s second option is to contact the Office of the Attorney General about filing a suit to establish his parent-child relationship with Stormi. This option will only cost him a nominal fee, making it a good choice were he in dire financial straits. The principal downside to this approach is that the Office of the Attorney General is not allowed to represent you in a paternity proceeding. They can assist you in seeking paternity, but at the end of the day they do not owe you a fiduciary duty like a private attorney does and they may not advocate for your position as zealously, either. Moreover, the Office of the Attorney General may proceed with the case at a snail’s pace as they handle thousands of cases per year; they are constantly backlogged with child support and paternity suits. This makes the Office of the Attorney General a good option for individuals who are limited financially, but less than optimal for those who can afford an attorney that will give them the intimate attention that every case deserves.

Tyga’s last option is to file a paternity action himself. By filing with the Court by himself, Tyga will be seeking a court order adjudicating him to be the biological father of Stormi. In a situation like this, he may request the Court to order DNA testing of the parties involved to establish Tyga’s biological paternity – a request Tyga has already made over social media. Should the DNA testing confirm that Tyga fathered Stormi, Tyga can then go about seeking custody and child support himself. As Tyga is presumably seeking a finding of paternity in order to be involved in his child’s life, having an award of custody is precisely the end goal that Tyga desires. The downside to this approach lies with the complicated procedures involved in any court proceeding. Tyga’s absence of formal legal training might hinder his ability to achieve his various goals. However, this route will only cost Tyga the filing fees involved in seeking paternity and possibly the fees associated with DNA testing. Therefore, this is a fast, relatively cheap option for Tyga.

In the circumstances at hand, it is clear that an Acknowledgment of Paternity is out of the realm of possibility for Tyga, as Kylie would never cooperate with him in that regard. Tyga’s more realistic options are to either request the support of the Office of the Attorney General in establishing a parent-child relationship with Stormi, to take matters into his own hands and represent himself in seeking a paternity determination, or to hire an attorney to represent him. His best course of action depends entirely on his priorities.

Written by: Spencer Page

Safety is Paramount!

Image result for rae carruthIn 1999, first round NFL draft pick Rae Carruth hired a hitman to kill his then-pregnant girlfriend to avoid paying child support. Although she didn’t die at the time, she later died after giving birth from complications of the attempted murder. A son was born with cerebral palsy as a result of trauma he suffered from the shooting. Carruth was found guilty of conspiring to murder the son’s mother in 2001, and sentenced to serve nearly 19 years in prison. He is scheduled to be released October 18, 2018.

Last month, Carruth expressed his remorse for the killing and his intent to seek custody of his son. But is he even “fit” to care for his disabled son? Texas law says no! Texas law public policy dictates that child custody decisions should be made based on the child’s best interest. A disability adds a special consideration to the already substantial weight of best interest. That consideration is the safety of the disabled child.

When looking to the best interest of a child, courts have traditionally considered about 9 factors announced in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976). However, the best interest of a child could literally mean anything and everything. For this case with Rae Carruth seeking custody of his disabled son, the primary consideration here should be the concern for the safety of the child. Under Texas law, Carruth would be subject to involuntary termination of his parental rights under 161.001(b)(1)(T)(i) because he was convicted of murdering the child’s mother.

The fact that his rights would be subject to termination defeats his argument for gaining custody of his son. Further, from a best interest of the child standpoint, would it ever be in the best interest to place a child with the parent who is responsible for the death of the other parent? I say that it would not be. There are three factors in particular that would defeat any attempt by Carruth to establish that it is in the best interest of his son to be place with him. Those factors are: (1) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, (2) the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future, and (3) the stability of the home or proposed placement. The child’s emotional wellbeing would significantly be impaired by being placed with his father and it could create a really dangerous precedent in the law. This child should not be subjected to a constant reminder of the person who murdered his mother. This consideration goes hand and hand with the concern of his physical wellbeing. It has been established that the cause of the child’s disability was caused by the father’s actions. The child suffered an immense strain during his mother’s pregnancy when his father attempted to murder his mother. None of these circumstances point to a placement with Rae Carruth being in the best interest of his son. Lastly, there is a good chance that the father’s home will not be a stable place for the child. Carruth is currently serving a jail sentence for his role in the death of the son’s mother. He literally hired a hit man to kill her because she did not obey his wishes to terminate the pregnancy that resulted in his son. In my opinion, an individual that would go to such lengths is not a very stable person. The child would likely suffer immensely in the home of such an unstable person. Therefore, it would be contrary to the best interest of the son to be placed with Carruth.

Rae Carruth should not be allowed to seek custody of his son. Although this case will likely be heard under North Carolina law, reviewing it under a Texas Law standard,  Rae Carruth’s parental rights would have likely already been terminated. Further, it is contrary to the best interest of the child to place him with his father. Rae Carruth’s request should be denied.

Image result for rae carruth

Written by: Kourtney Malone-Parker