Keeyanna Natalie Parson v. Auston Kade Parson

Opinion filed October 16, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00104-CV
__________

KEEYANNA NATALIE PARSON, Appellant
V.
AUSTON KADE PARSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 318th District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. FM72614

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Keeyanna Natalie Parson, appeals the trial court’s final decree of
divorce dissolving her marriage to Appellee, Auston Kade Parson. Keeyanna raises
two issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by:
(1) appointing Auston as the conservator with the exclusive right to designate the
child’s primary residence; and (2) improperly considering the religious faith of
Keeyanna and her family in reaching its decision. We affirm.
I. Factual and Procedural History
Auston and Keeyanna married on January 26, 2021. Their son, J.P., 1 was born
on July 3, 2021. On July 6, 2023, Auston filed a petition for divorce. Keeyanna
later filed a counterpetition for divorce. Both parties sought to be named as the
conservator with the exclusive right to designate J.P.’s primary residence. The case
proceeded to a final hearing, at which the following evidence was presented.
A. Auston’s Testimony
Auston testified that he met Keeyanna in Honolulu, Hawaii, while serving in
the Navy. After their marriage and the birth of J.P., the couple continued to reside
in Hawaii with Keeyanna’s parents. Auston stated that he received an “other than
honorable” discharge from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine, and the family
eventually moved to Mississippi to continue living with Keeyanna’s parents. In July
2022, the couple moved to Midland, where Auston’s parents reside, and began living
in their own apartment. They eventually moved into a house. Auston stated that
they would see his family frequently, including for holidays and birthdays. Upon
moving to Midland, Auston began working for his father as a landman while
Keeyanna stayed home to care for J.P. On July 3, 2023, Auston visited his parents
and a friend after work, but when he arrived home, he discovered the house empty.
Auston stated that “it appeared that there had been bags packed.” He later learned
that Keeyanna had taken J.P. to Mississippi.
Shortly thereafter, Auston filed a petition for divorce. The parties reached an
agreement for alternating two-week periods of possession of J.P., and the trial court
entered a temporary order pursuant to the agreement. During one of Auston’s
periods of possession in Midland, Keeyanna and J.P. stayed at Auston’s residence.
After a few hours, Auston told Keeyanna that he was going to take J.P. to his father’s

1
To protect the privacy of the minor child, we use initials to refer to the child. TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2024).
2
house for dinner. Auston stated that Keeyanna became very agitated, and when he
tried to leave with J.P., Keeyanna “ripped him from [Auston’s] arms.” Keeyanna
then took J.P. to a bedroom and locked the door. Auston contacted the police, who
allowed him to take J.P. to his father’s house. Auston spent the rest of his period of
possession at a hotel and his father’s house. When he returned, Auston discovered
that “the house was a complete mess.” The leg to a television was broken, and he
discovered a used condom in the trash can.
Auston testified that he has the financial ability to provide for J.P as well as
flexibility with his work schedule to take leave when J.P. needs “caring for.” Auston
stated that his sixty-eight-year-old grandmother takes care of J.P. while Auston is at
work. Auston said that he has no trouble providing transportation for J.P., while
Keeyanna does not have an automobile or driver’s license. He had concerns with
J.P. living in Mississippi with Keeyanna’s parents because he learned of three past
instances of sexual abuse in the home that were not reported. Auston also had
concerns with Keeyanna’s mental health, as she had attempted suicide, had “cut
herself” in the past, and had been committed to a mental hospital. As recently as
April 2023, Auston observed scars on her leg from Keeyanna cutting herself. Auston
expressed concern that Keeyanna’s parents, who care for J.P. while she works, take
J.P. to church services that last approximately three hours. Keeyanna’s father is
seventy years old, and her mother is sixty-five years old. Auston also is of the
opinion that the school systems in Mississippi “are almost the worst in the country.”
While video chatting with J.P., Auston learned that Keeyanna was in a romantic
relationship with someone, and he noticed that they were at someone else’s house at
the time. Auston has had trouble communicating with Keeyanna and her parents to
arrange video chats with J.P. when J.P. is in Mississippi. When Auston has
possession of J.P., they live alone in a house in Midland.

3
Auston admitted that he and Keeyanna have used controlled substances in the
past, including mushrooms and marihuana. He also admitted to using cocaine,
ecstasy, and acid. He testified that he used mushrooms when the family was on a
trip in Colorado and that he was carrying J.P. on his shoulders while under the
influence of the substance. Auston also stated that he and Keeyanna sold drugs in
the past. However, Auston claimed that he has not used any controlled substances
since July 20, 2023. Auston submitted to drug testing during the pendency of the
case and tested negative on all tests. He stated that he drank alcohol on occasion.
Further, Auston believed that he observed Keeyanna smoking marihuana while he
was video chatting with J.P.
Auston claimed that Keeyanna logged into his e-mail while she was in
Mississippi. He testified that he has been responsible for all of J.P.’s transportation
between Texas and Mississippi throughout the duration of the case. On multiple
occasions, Keeyanna refused his requests for a flexible pickup time for J.P. due to
inclement weather. Auston began taking J.P. to his pediatrician at the end of his
possession periods due to Keeyanna claiming that J.P. was in bad health. During a
video chat with J.P., Auston observed that J.P. was attempting to brush his teeth with
diaper rash cream, and Auston had to yell to get someone’s attention to prevent that.
Auston acknowledged that Keeyanna took photographs that show his
residence in a state of disarray. However, he believed Keeyanna staged the
photographs. Auston claimed that he “[a]lmost always” keeps his home clean.
Auston also believes that Keeyanna staged a photograph of a firearm in J.P.’s
bedroom.
B. Keeyana’s Testimony
Keeyanna testified that she currently works at Walmart and is studying
to become a paralegal. She works from around 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
three to four days a week, and attends school Monday through Thursday from
4
8:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. When Keeyanna is unavailable, Keeyanna’s parents watch
J.P. Keeyanna stated that she does not currently have a driver’s license and relies
on her parents for transportation.
Keeyanna testified that Auston was emotionally abusive during their marriage
and that he would often get intoxicated around J.P. She explained that Auston would
accuse her of cheating and that he would often go to someone’s house after work to
use marihuana. She testified that she is seeing a counselor and that she talks to the
counselor about her coparenting relationship with Auston and the emotional abuse
she has suffered. Keeyanna stated that she attempted suicide when she was fifteen
and has had issues with self-mutilation. She last cut herself in May 2023. Keeyanna
explained that she has anxiety and depression and that she was recently diagnosed
with Type II diabetes. She admitted to using mushrooms and marihuana in the past.
Keeyanna testified that she is in a relationship with someone in Mississippi
and that she has taken J.P. to his residence. Keeyanna relayed that her parents are
members of the Jehovah’s Witness faith and that they take J.P. to church services.
Her parents refrain from celebrating holidays pursuant to their faith. Keeyanna
explained that the sexual abuse referenced by Auston occurred when she and her
brother were younger and that her parents did not find out about the incidents until
she was an adult. Keeyanna testified that she submitted urine samples for drug
testing throughout the case and that she had only negative results.
Keeyanna testified that Auston would view pornography while J.P. was in the
home. On one occasion, Keeyanna saw a naked picture of a young girl on Auston’s
phone, and Auston told her it was of his girlfriend from when Auston was fourteen.
Keeyanna recalled a time when J.P. was in the hospital for four days with an illness,
and Auston did not come to visit during his stay.
Keeyanna further testified that when she and Auston were together, she served
as the primary caretaker for J.P. Auston’s family did not like that he was married to
5
her because she is African-American. She said that Auston often used foul language
and derogatory words including racist slurs, with Keeyanna, which he admitted to
on cross-examination. Keeyanna stated that Auston’s stepfather has felony DWI
convictions and that he keeps guns at his house. She said that although she does not
have a driver’s license, she has had to drive when Auston was intoxicated. Keeyanna
testified that Auston’s home in Midland is extremely dirty and disorganized, while
her home in Mississippi is very clean.
C. Additional Testimony
Erin Hobbs, a nurse that works for J.P.’s pediatrician, testified that J.P. is a
happy, healthy kid and that she has not observed any signs of abuse or neglect.
Erwin Medlock testified that he is married to Auston’s grandmother. He stated that
he is African-American and that he has not been treated differently by Auston’s
family due to his race. He has never heard Auston or his family use racist slurs.
Auston hired Christopher Whitlock, a private investigator, to surveil
Keeyanna. Whitlock observed that Keeyanna would primarily work from 1:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m. He testified that he observed J.P. in the possession of Keeyanna’s
parents most of the time.
Auston’s mother testified that she is forty-four years old and works as a nurse
intern. She stated that she spends a lot of time with J.P. while he is in Midland. She
relayed that Auston and J.P. are very close, and Auston is very patient with J.P. She
further testified that she is concerned about J.P.’s care in Mississippi because he is
always in the care of Keeyanna’s parents, and they spend a lot of their day at church
where there is no childcare. Auston’s mother acknowledged that her husband has
felony DWI convictions but that he has been sober since 2016.
Auston’s father testified that Auston is very kind, patient, and attentive toward
J.P. His father acknowledged that Auston had trouble with marihuana use during
Auston’s marriage to Keeyanna. He stated that he has attended Alcoholics
6
Anonymous meetings with Auston and that Keeyanna was upset about this because
she still used marihuana.
D. The Trial Court’s Rulings
Following the final hearing, the trial court signed a final decree of divorce
designating Auston as the conservator with the exclusive right to designate J.P.’s
primary residence. The trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law,
including the following findings:
In determining which parent should establish the primary residence of
the child, the Court based its ruling on the best interest of the child,
including the following matters: the mother’s abrupt move without
notice; the mother taking the child to Mississippi; the work schedules
of each of the parents; family support; the ability to provide and support
the child; parental cooperation; demonstration of an ability to coparent;
and the living arrangements that both parents have.
In determining which parent should establish the primary residence of
the child, the Court did not take into account or consider in any manner
the race or religion of Petitioner, Respondent, their respective family
members, or the child.
This appeal followed.
II. Right to Designate the Child’s Primary Residence
In her first issue, Keeyanna argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
naming Auston as the conservator with the exclusive right to designate J.P.’s primary
residence.
A. Standard of Review & Applicable Law
When the trial court appoints joint managing conservators, it must designate
the conservator who has the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of the
child. FAM. § 153.134(b)(1) (West 2014). In determining which joint conservator
should have that exclusive right, the best interest of the child is the trial court’s
primary consideration, as it is in determining all “issues of conservatorship and
possession of and access to the child.” Id. § 153.002.
7
In determining the child’s best interest, no unique set of factors need to be
proved by a party or considered by the trial court. In re B.G.J., 702 S.W.3d 886,
905–06 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2024, no pet.). The trial court may consider a variety
of factors, including those set forth in Holley v. Adams. Id.; see Holley v. Adams,
544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976). These factors include (1) the desires of the
child; (2) the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future; (3) the
emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future; (4) the parental
abilities of the individuals seeking custody; (5) the programs available to assist these
individuals to promote the best interest of the child; (6) the plans for the child by
these individuals; (7) the stability of the home; (8) the acts or omissions of the parent
that may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one; and
(9) any excuse for the acts or omissions of the parent. Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371–
72. Under Section 153.134(a) of the Texas Family Code, the trial court should also
consider:
(1) whether the physical, psychological, or emotional needs and
development of the child will benefit from the appointment of joint
managing conservators;
(2) the ability of the parents to give first priority to the welfare of
the child and reach shared decisions in the child’s best interest;
(3) whether each parent can encourage and accept a positive
relationship between the child and the other parent;
(4) whether both parents participated in child rearing before the
filing of the suit;
(5) the geographical proximity of the parents’ residences;
(6) if the child is 12 years of age or older, the child’s preference,
if any, regarding the person to have the exclusive right to designate the
primary residence of the child; and
(7) any other relevant factor.
FAM. § 153.134(a).
8
We review a trial court’s decisions regarding conservatorship, including a
determination of which conservator will have the right to establish the child’s
primary residence, for an abuse of discretion. In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611, 616
(Tex. 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner or when it acts without reference to any guiding principles.
Echols v. Olivarez, 85 S.W.3d 475, 477 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
Legal and factual sufficiency challenges are not independent grounds of error
in family law cases, but rather are factors that we use to determine whether the trial
court abused its discretion. In re E.R.D., 671 S.W.3d 682, 686–87 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 2023, no pet.); In re A.J.E., 372 S.W.3d 696, 698 (Tex. App.—Eastland
2012, no pet.). In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we
consider whether it had sufficient information upon which to exercise its discretion
and, if so, whether it erred in the application of that discretion. In re J.H.C., No. 11-
17-00187-CV, 2019 WL 2557542, at *6 (Tex. App.—Eastland June 20, 2019, no
pet.) (mem. op.). In conducting our analysis, the sufficiency-of-the-evidence
review is part of the first inquiry. Id. After we evaluate the sufficiency of the
evidence, we consider whether, based on that evidence, the trial court made a
reasonable decision. Id.
A legal sufficiency review requires that we determine whether the evidence
in support of the challenged finding rises to a level that would enable reasonable and
fair-minded people to arrive at the decision under review. W & T Offshore, Inc. v.
Fredieu, 610 S.W.3d 884, 897–98 (Tex. 2020); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d
802, 807, 827 (Tex. 2005). We will sustain a challenge to the legal sufficiency of
the evidence that supports a disputed fact finding when (1) evidence of a vital fact is
absent, (2) the rules of law or evidence prohibit the court from giving weight to the
only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital
fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the
9
opposite of the vital fact. Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763, 782–83
(Tex. 2020) (citing Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 903 (Tex.
2004)); City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810.
In reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge, we must consider and weigh all
the evidence—not just the evidence that support’s the trial court’s finding—and
determine whether the evidence supporting the order is so weak or against the
overwhelming weight of the evidence such that the order is clearly wrong and
manifestly unjust. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 826; E.R.D., 671 S.W.3d at
687.
If the evidence is conflicting, we must presume that the factfinder resolved
any inconsistencies in favor of the order if a reasonable person could do so. City of
Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 821. In this regard, the trial court, as the factfinder, is in the
best position to observe and assess the witnesses, their demeanor, and their
credibility, and we afford great latitude and deference to the trial court when
determining the best interest of a child. E.R.D., 671 S.W.3d at 687; In re S.E.K., 294
S.W.3d 926, 930 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied).
B. Analysis
Keeyanna argues that the trial court’s decision allowing Auston to determine
the primary residence of the child was an abuse of discretion because its “decision
does not hold up to scrutiny” under the best-interest factors described above. Auston
responds by noting that the evidence, when viewed under the proper standard of
review, provides sufficient evidence for the trial court to have exercised its discretion
as it did.
The record shows that Auston has the financial means and family support to
care for J.P. He has stable employment and housing. Auston presented testimony
that he is a capable and caring father to J.P. Both Auston and Keeyanna have
engaged in the use of illegal drugs, and they have also sold narcotics. However, both
10
tested negative for drug use throughout the pendency of the case. While there was
evidence that Auston consumed alcohol excessively in the past, he has been sober
throughout the litigation and has attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. There
was conflicting evidence regarding the cleanliness of Auston’s home, which we
presume the trial court resolved in favor of its ruling. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d
at 821. We also defer to the trial court’s credibility determinations regarding
Keeyanna and Auston, who had conflicting testimony as to their relative parenting
abilities, including Keeyana’s allegations regarding racial animus among Auston’s
family and Auston’s past use of pornography. See E.R.D., 671 S.W.3d at 687.
As to Keeyanna, the trial court heard evidence that she is not able to transport
J.P. because she does not own a vehicle or have a driver’s license. Keeyanna
exhibited self-harming behavior such as suicide attempts and self-mutilation. Based
on the foregoing, we conclude the evidence supporting the trial court’s ruling rises
to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to arrive at the
decision under review. See Fredieu, 610 S.W.3d at 897–98.
The parties also presented conflicting evidence regarding their varying faults
in the marriage’s dissolution and their ability to coparent. However, in considering
and weighing all the evidence, we cannot conclude that the evidence supporting the
trial court’s decision is so weak or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence
such that it is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d
at 826. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court had sufficient information upon
which to exercise its discretion and that it did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in
the application of that discretion. See J.H.C., 2019 WL 2557542, at *6. Specifically,
we note that the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s best interest
determination under the Holley factors, and the factors listed in
Section 153.134(a)(2), (3), and (4) of the Texas Family Code. See FAM.
§ 153.134(a). We overrule Keeyanna’s first issue.
11
III. The Religious Faith of the Parties Was Not Considered
In her second issue, Keeyanna argues that the trial court improperly
considered the religious faith of Keeyanna and her family in reaching its
conservatorship decision. In support, Keeyanna cites to case law declaring that it is
“beyond the power of a court, in awarding the custody of a child or children to prefer
the religious views or teachings of either parent, even though the beliefs and
practices of one parent might be more ‘normal’ or more in accord with majority
religious views or practices.” Matter of Marriage of Knighton, 723 S.W.2d 274, 278
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 1987, no writ) (citing Salvaggio v. Barnett, 248 S.W.2d 244,
247 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1952, writ ref’d n.r.e.)).
As an initial matter, we note that Keeyanna did not object to any testimony
regarding her family’s religious views or practices, as she concedes. Therefore, she
has not preserved for our review any issue regarding the admission of testimony or
evidence regarding her or her family’s religious views or practices. See Matter of
Marriage of Rutland, 729 S.W.2d 923, 932 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref’d
n.r.e.) (“[B]y failing to object, [the appellant] waived any error in the admission of
evidence regarding her religious beliefs and practices.”).
Nevertheless, there is no indication in the record that the trial court relied on
the religious views or practices of either party or their respective families in reaching
its decision. Importantly, the trial court issued a finding of fact specifically stating
that it “did not take into account or consider in any manner the race or religion” of
Auston, Keeyanna, their respective family members, or the child in making its
conservatorship determination. We have already held that the trial court’s decision
to designate Auston as the conservator with the right to designate J.P.’s primary
residence was informed by sufficient evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.

12
Here, there is no indication that the trial court reached its decision on an improper
basis. We overrule Keeyanna’s second issue.
IV. This Court’s Ruling
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

October 16, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

13