In the Interest of I.C.S., a Child v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00045-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/1/2025 12:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
Court of Appeals.: 15-25-00045-CV 15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/27/2025 12:02:01 AM
Trial Court: DF-24-07441
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

__________________________________________________________________
____________

In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas

__________________________________________________________________
____________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.S., A CHILD

__________________________________

Appellant's Opening Brief

__________________________

Appellant: Nanyamka Sims

Appellee: Kai H. Clark

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

1. Table of Contents

1
2. Identity of Parties and Counsel

3. Table of Authorities

4. Statement of the Case

5. Issues Presented

6. Statement of Facts

7. Summary of the Argument

8. Argument

9. Conclusion

10. Certificate of Compliance

11. Certificate of Service

12. Appendix

2. IDENTITY OF PARTIES, JUDGES

In accord with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,

Appellant provides this Court with this complete list of all interested parties.

Appellant
Nanyamka N. Sims ( Pro Se )

Appellee
Kai H. Clark ( Pro Se )

2
Nicole Loya
Office of the Attorney General
Child Support Division

3. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

• Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976)

• In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010)

• In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2013)

• In the Interest of A.A.E., a Minor Child v. 107th District Court of

Cameron County

• In re Marriage of Brown, 768 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App. 1989)

3
STATUES

Texas Family Code § 153.002 – The best interest of the child shall always

be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of

conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.

Texas Family Code § 153.003 – The court shall consider the qualifications

of the parties without regard to their marital status or to the sex of the

party or the child in determining conservatorship.

4. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES

Texas Family Code § 157.001 – A motion for enforcement may be filed to

enforce any provision of a temporary or final order rendered in a suit.

Texas Family Code § 157.002 – A motion for enforcement must, in

ordinary and concise language, identify the provision of the order

allegedly violated and sought to be enforced.

4
Texas Family Code §§ 157.001–157.002 Statutory Text: Governs the

enforcement of prior court orders, requiring motions for enforcement to

identify the violated provision in ordinary and concise language. Purpose:

Ensures compliance with custody arrangements and court directives.

Texas Family Code § 6.711 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Case No.: 15-25-00045-CV

__________________________________________________________________
____________

In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas

__________________________________________________________________
____________

IN THE INTEREST OF I.C.S., A CHILD

__________________________________________________________________

To the Honorable Judges of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals:

Nanyamka Sims, Appellant, presents this opening brief.

4. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
5
This appeal is predicated on the paramount consideration of the best interests

of the minor child, I.C.S. Critical factors include the child's emotional and physical

well-being, the positive relationship with each parent, and the stability of each

home environment. The Appellant/Mother respectfully requests that the court

overturn the prior decision regarding the change of the child's last name, the

restrictions on the grandmother's presence during drop-offs/pickups, and the

information not provided at the time of the Final Custody Order. The prior rulings

do not appear to be supported by the evidence presented in this case or the previous

proceedings, which do not justify such a drastic change. The record should be

reviewed for any additional language or evidence that supports these points.

^1 Certain filings referenced herein appear in the trial court’s docket but were omitted

from the Clerk’s Record transmitted to this Court. Appellant has filed a request pursuant to Tex.

R. App. P. 34.5(c) to supplement the record, and has requested that the trial court clerk provide a

certified copy to Appellant and transmit the complete record to this Court. For ease of reference

in this brief, citations to these documents are abbreviated and tied back to this footnote until

supplementation is complete.

6
5. ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant presents the following issues to be reviewed

1. Whether the trial court erred by failing to incorporate the Mediation

Agreement and Subsequent Agreement into the Final Orders, despite its

directive that they be filed.

2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to review or acknowledge the

Appellant/Mother’s timely Final Order Request ^1.

3. Whether the trial court failed to provide sufficient findings of fact and

conclusions of law to support its rulings.

4. Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider all relevant motions and

evidence before making custody determinations.

5. Whether the trial court’s unclear questioning deprived the Appellant/Mother

of a fair opportunity to respond, resulting in procedural error.

6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a change of the

minor child’s last name.

7. Whether the trial court erred in restricting the maternal grandmother’s

involvement during custody exchanges.

7
8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by restricting custody exchanges

solely to the Patrol Division without accommodating the child’s routine and

Appellant/Mother’s work schedule.

9. Whether the trial court erred by failing to adequately consider evidence of

the Appellee/Father’s neglect of medical instructions for the minor child.

10. Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the Appellee/Father’s

non‑compliance with prior court orders as a material change in

circumstances.

11. Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider the Appellee/Father’s

admitted failure to exercise full possession time and his inconsistent

scheduling.

6. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This appellate brief is submitted by the Appellant/Mother, who is representing

herself in these proceedings.

The underlying suit affecting the parent‑child relationship was filed on 5/23/24.

The trial court conducted hearings and signed the Final Order on 2/28/25.

During the hearing, Appellant/Mother stated that both a Partial Mediation

Agreement and a Subsequent Agreement had been reached (RR Vol. 1, p. 5,6). The

trial court, however, only acknowledged the Partial Mediation Agreement, stating,

8
“What the final order is, you're going to take the MSA, the language from the MSA

that you-all agreed to, as well as the language I have on here, you-all are going to

turn it into a final order” (RR Vol. 1, p. 38). The court then directed that

Appellee/Father “Okay. So one of the best places to start is the basement where the

law library is. And I'm going to put on here, father is ordered to do the final

order” (RR Vol. 1, p. 38). Despite this directive, the Final Orders did not

incorporate either the Mediation Agreement or the Subsequent Agreement.

Instead, Appellee/Father submitted conflicting documents, including a request for a

name change, which materially altered the parent‑child relationship (CR 104 -

124 ).

The trial court further failed to address evidence regarding the maternal

grandmother’s role, which was directly relevant to the child’s stability and best

interests (RR Vol. 1, p. 26 - 37).

The hearing mentioned restrictiing custody exchanges to the Patrol Division but

did not list in Final Order (RR Vol. 1, p. 98. During the hearing, Appellant/Mother

raised concerns that this location conflicted with her work schedule and the child’s

daily routine (RR Vol. 1, p. 52). The trial court did not address these concerns or

provide alternative accommodations, despite testimony regarding the impact on the

child’s stability.

9
Additionally, the record reflects that Appellee/Father demonstrated repeated

non‑compliance with court directives, including absences, disregard of medical

instructions for the minor child, and conduct that fostered a hostile co‑parenting

environment. These actions disrupted the child’s routine, compromised medical

care, and undermined the child’s well‑being (RR Vol. 4, p. 112–115).

7. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court’s rulings undermine the best interests of the minor child, as

established in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976). First, the court

abused its discretion in granting a change of the child’s last name. Stability of

identity is a critical best‑interest factor under Holley, and the record contains no

findings demonstrating that the name change served the child’s welfare. The trial

court’s failure to provide sufficient justification for this ruling constitutes

reversible error.

Second, the trial court erred by omitting the Subsequent Parenting Agreement from

the Final Orders, despite its directive that the Mediated Settlement Agreement

(MSA) be filed. On the record, Appellant/Mother advised the court that both

agreements had been executed, and her timely Final Order Request ^1—submitted

prior to trial and included in the clerk’s record—explicitly referenced them. Both

parties legally signed the agreements, making them binding under Texas Family

Code § 153.007(c). By failing to incorporate the Subsequent Agreement, the trial

10
court disregarded binding obligations and compromised the clarity of the custody

arrangement.

Third, the trial court abused its discretion by restricting custody exchanges

exclusively to the Dallas Southwest Patrol Division. This restriction fails to

account for the Appellant/Mother’s work schedule and the child’s daily routine. A

weekday drop‑off location at 1999 E. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX which is near

the Appellant/Mother is beneficial because it avoids rushed, chaotic transitions and

ensures the child’s schedule is honored. Weekend exchanges at the Dallas Patrol

Division located at 4230 West Illinois Ave., Dallas, TX 75211, remain important

to accommodate the Appellee/Father’s work schedule. This balanced arrangement

respects both parents’ time while prioritizing the child’s stability and well‑being.

But again it was mentioned but not listed in Final Orders.

Fourth, the trial court erred in restricting the maternal grandmother’s involvement

during custody exchanges. The record reflects that the maternal grandmother has

been a consistent caregiver since before the child’s birth, providing stability and

continuity essential to the child’s well‑being. Restricting her participation

disregards established bonds and undermines the child’s routine, contrary to the

best‑interest factors outlined in Holley.

The trial court also failed to review or acknowledge the Appellant/Mother’s Final

Order Request ^1 before the custody hearing, issuing rulings without full

11
consideration of the proposed custody framework. Additionally, the court’s failure

to conduct clear and structured questioning deprived the Appellant/Mother of an

opportunity to provide precise responses, leading to misinterpretations that

negatively impacted the custody ruling. This lack of procedural clarity contradicts

Texas Family Code § 105.003, which requires that parties in suits affecting the

parent‑child relationship be afforded a fair opportunity to present their positions.

The Appellee/Father’s pattern of non‑compliance with prior court orders, neglect

of medical responsibilities, and erratic behavior constitutes a material change in

circumstances requiring judicial reconsideration. Texas case law confirms that

enforceable custody agreements are essential to mitigating the impact of such

behaviors (In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010); In re C.A.M.M., 243

S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. 2007)). In addition to failing to adhere to medical

instructions, the Appellee/Father admitted in court that he frequently changed his

weekly schedule, missed parenting time, failed to attend medical appointments,

and prioritized travel over his parental responsibilities. These admissions confirm

his inconsistent involvement and disregard for court orders, reinforcing the need

for custody modifications that reflect the Appellant/Mother’s consistent

commitment to her child’s welfare.

12
8. ARGUMENT

I. The Trial Court’s Improper Decision to Change the Child’s Surname

The Appellant/Mother has demonstrated unwavering devotion, ensuring her child’s

emotional, psychological, and physical well‑being despite challenges that have

required immense personal sacrifice. A child’s surname is not merely an

identifier—it is an extension of heritage, a representation of identity, and an

affirmation of lineage, particularly when the mother has been the primary caregiver

without support from a marital partner.

The parents were never in a marital union, and their prior discussions confirmed

that the child would bear the mother’s surname, honoring established cultural

traditions that preserve continuity and belonging within the maternal lineage (RR

Vol. 1, p. 24 - 27). The Appellant/Mother’s deeply rooted beliefs affirm that a

child born outside of marriage rightfully carries the mother’s last name, ensuring

continuity, protection, and a sense of belonging in the maternal family structure.

The trial court’s decision to change the child’s surname failed to include findings

demonstrating how the change served the child’s best interests. This omission

violates the principles set forth in Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976),

which prioritize stability, continuity, and identity as essential components of a

child’s welfare. By disregarding the established maternal bond and cultural

13
significance of the surname “Sims,” the trial court severed the child from a

foundational aspect of identity without evidentiary.

Although the child is under five years old, continuity with the maternal surname is

already firmly established. His medical records, care providers, and prescriptions

consistently identify him by the surname “Sims.” He has been taught to recognize

his full name, including his surname, as part of his early identity formation.

Altering the surname at this stage would disrupt continuity of care and identity,

creating instability during formative years. Courts applying the Holley factors have

recognized that stability and continuity are paramount, particularly for young

children who cannot yet advocate for themselves.

The record further reflects that the father has not consistently exercised his

parenting time, missing more than thirty scheduled visitations in the past eighteen

months and failing to attend medical appointments (RR Vol. 1 p. 20 – 23) ^1. He

also admitted to prioritizing travel and personal commitments over consistent

parenting. These facts underscore that the surname change was not supported by

evidence of consistent parental involvement, which Texas courts have recognized

as essential to the child’s best interests.

Texas appellate courts have reversed surname changes where the trial court failed

to make findings demonstrating how the change served the child’s best interests.

14
These rulings confirm that continuity of identity and stability of care outweigh

symbolic claims of legacy when evaluating a child’s surname.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully requests that the appellate court reverse the trial

court’s decision to change the child’s surname and reinstate “Sims” as the child’s

rightful last name. This relief honors the maternal sacrifices, cultural traditions,

and foundational bond between mother and child, while restoring stability and

continuity consistent with the best‑interest factors established in Holley and the

statutory requirements of Texas Family Code § 45.002.

II. The Improper Restriction on the Maternal Grandmother’s Custody
Exchange Participation

The trial court’s restriction barring the maternal grandmother from participating in
custody exchanges is unfounded and directly harmful to the child’s stability. By
enforcing this restriction despite legal evidence proving the grandmother’s
innocence, the court failed to act in the child’s best interests, violating fundamental
custody principles under Texas Family Code § 153.002, which requires that the
child’s welfare and stability remain the paramount consideration.

The Appellee/Father accused the maternal grandmother of assault, resulting in

legal proceedings that were dismissed with prejudice on September 16, 2024, due

to lack of evidence. Despite the complete invalidation of these claims, the trial

15
court did not correct the restriction, effectively depriving the child of access to a

trusted caregiver without any legitimate legal basis.

The Grandmother’s Indispensable Role in the Child’s Life

As the sole surviving grandmother, she has consistently served as a guide, nurturer,

and stabilizing force, ensuring that the child receives emotional, medical, and

practical support. Her involvement has been particularly critical when the

Appellee/Father has failed to fulfill his parental duties.

• She has attended medical appointments, ensuring the child’s health needs are

met despite the father’s repeated failure to participate in healthcare decisions

(CR p. 48 - 53).

• She has provided childcare and emotional support, filling gaps in parental

involvement when the father has been absent or unavailable.

• She has served as a safeguard during custody exchanges, ensuring transitions

occur without unnecessary stress or conflict, preserving the child’s sense of

security and routine.

The Appendix includes the Dismissal Order confirming the grandmother’s

innocence, further supporting the request to lift the restriction.

16
Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the

restriction preventing the maternal grandmother from participating in custody

exchanges. Restoring her involvement ensures the child retains access to a

stabilizing caregiver who has played a vital role in his upbringing, thereby

promoting continuity, security, and the child’s best interests as required under

Texas Family Code § 153.002.

III. Material Change in Circumstances Due to the Appellee/Father’s Ongoing
Violations and Unreliable Behavior

The trial court erred by disregarding the Appellee/Father’s ongoing violations of

court orders and his unreliable parenting behavior, which together constitute a

material change in circumstances requiring reconsideration of custody. Texas

Family Code § 153.002 mandates that the child’s best interests remain the primary

consideration, and repeated noncompliance undermines the stability and continuity

necessary for the child’s welfare.

The Appellee/Father’s failure to comply with court‑ordered parenting and

co‑parenting classes, as mandated in 2023, constitutes a direct violation of judicial

directives . Despite being explicitly required to complete these courses to improve

his parental involvement and ability to co‑parent effectively, he has failed to

provide proof of completion. His disregard for court directives demonstrates an

17
unwillingness to fulfill parental responsibilities, which the trial court failed to

weigh when issuing its order.

Noncompliance with court‑mandated parenting courses constitutes a material

change in circumstances, as parental education is critical to maintaining a

structured, stable environment for the minor child. His failure to participate in the

required programs further supports modification of custody arrangements, ensuring

that the child remains under the care of the parent who has demonstrated consistent

responsibility and commitment.

The Appellee/Father’s broader pattern of neglect and disregard for parental

responsibilities reinforces the need for reconsideration:

• He has missed more than thirty scheduled custody visits in the past eighteen

months, disrupting the child’s routine and emotional stability ^ 1.

• He has violated court orders, including a No‑Trespassing Order and

Temporary Protective Order that started during our previous case and has

been active since, demonstrating an inability to maintain structured

co‑parenting agreements.

• He has prioritized frequent travel over parenting responsibilities, repeatedly

choosing personal engagements instead of fulfilling obligations to his child.

These facts, documented in the record, establish a clear pattern of noncompliance

and instability. The trial court’s failure to weigh these circumstances constitutes an

18
abuse of discretion, as the child’s best interests require continuity, accountability,

and reliable caregiving.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Appellee/Father’s documented noncompliance and violations, which

constitute a material change in circumstances under Texas Family Code § 153.002.

IV. The Appellee/Father’s Failure to Fulfill Medical Responsibilities

The trial court erred by disregarding the Appellee/Father’s failure to participate in

the child’s healthcare and adhere to post‑surgical guidelines, which poses a direct

risk to the child’s well‑being. Hypospadias is a serious congenital condition

requiring surgical correction; untreated, it can cause lifelong complications

including urinary dysfunction, fertility issues, psychological distress, and the need

for additional corrective surgeries.

The record reflects that the Appellee/Father refused to attend the child’s surgery,

failed to engage in medical discussions, and demanded visitation immediately after

the procedure despite discharge restrictions. He further misrepresented the

December 14, 2023 surgery as a circumcision, minimizing the seriousness of the

condition and contradicting medical documentation . These actions demonstrate an

19
inability to prioritize the child’s best interests, yet the trial court did not address

this evidence (RR Vol. 1, p. 20 -23).

Texas courts have recognized that a parent’s failure to fulfill medical

responsibilities is grounds for custody reconsideration. In In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d

528 (Tex. App. 2013), the court held that medical neglect justified modification

where it posed a direct risk to the child’s well‑being. Here, the Appellee/Father’s

failure to participate in medical care, repeated absences from healthcare decisions,

and misrepresentation of the child’s condition demonstrate neglect that the trial

court failed to weigh. Texas Family Code § 153.002 requires courts to prioritize

the child’s best interests, making the trial court’s omission reversible error.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Appellee/Father’s documented medical neglect and misrepresentation.

V. The Appellee/Father’s Failure to Adhere to a Consistent Schedule and Use
His Full Possession Time

The trial court erred by disregarding the Appellee/Father’s inability to maintain a

structured schedule and consistently utilize his full possession time, which has

caused repeated disruptions to the child’s routine, stability, and emotional
20
well‑being. Texas Family Code § 153.002 requires that custody determinations

prioritize the child’s best interests, including continuity and reliability in parental

care.

The record reflects that the Appellee/Father admitted his weekly schedule

frequently changes, making it impossible to uphold a structured visitation

arrangement that supports the child’s need for routine and security (RR Vol. 1, p.

31). His unreliable parenting pattern includes missed visits, failure to fully utilize

possession time, and prioritization of personal travel over consistent caregiving.

He further admitted that he has the option to choose a more structured work

schedule to benefit the minor child but has failed to do so.

Texas courts have recognized that custody arrangements must reflect the parent

who provides reliability, commitment, and consistent care. See In re J.D., 304

S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010). The trial court’s failure to weigh father’s repeated

absences and admissions constitutes an abuse of discretion, as these facts directly

undermine the child’s stability and best interests.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Appellee/Father’s documented failure to adhere to a consistent schedule and

utilize his possession time.

21
VI. The Trial Court’s Unreasonable Restriction on Custody Exchanges

The trial court erred by restricting custody exchanges solely to the Dallas

Southwest Patrol Division, imposing undue hardship on the Appellant/Mother and

creating logistical obstacles that interfere with timely and structured transitions for

the child. This rigid requirement disrupts the child’s routine and places

unnecessary burdens on the Appellant/Mother, despite her consistent adherence to

visitation schedules and parental obligations.

The Appellant/Mother originally requested that exchanges occur at a police station

due to the Appellee/Father’s hostility and her discomfort with him coming to her

home. This arrangement provided safety and neutrality. The Appellee/Father later

requested that the location be moved closer to him, despite knowing that the

Appellant/Mother works weekday morning shifts and that such a change would

compromise her employment. His request created additional burdens rather than

serving the child’s best interests.

The Appellant/Mother offered a fair compromise: weekday exchanges at her

chosen location to accommodate her work schedule, and weekend exchanges near

the Appellee/Father, since he either does not work or works evening overtime

shifts. This demonstrates her reasonableness and commitment to minimizing

conflict while prioritizing the child’s routine.
22
The record reflects that the Appellant/Mother works during the week, making the

designated exchange location incompatible with timely transportation (CR ^ 1).

She has never missed a visitation date, demonstrating her steadfast dedication to

honoring court‑ordered obligations and prioritizing the child’s best interests. In

contrast, the Appellee/Father has no weekday work obligations and has repeatedly

failed to adhere to agreed‑upon parenting terms, undermining the stability

necessary for effective co‑parenting.

Custody exchanges must be structured to prioritize the child’s emotional security

and reduce unnecessary conflict. The trial court’s ruling disregarded parental

availability and practical considerations, contradicting the best‑interest standard

under Texas Family Code § 153.002 and the principles articulated in Holley v.

Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976), which emphasize continuity and stability in

custody orders.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider the

designated custody exchange location in light of the Appellant/Mother’s original

request for safety, her work schedule, the child’s routine, and the Appellee/Father’s

inconsistent adherence to parenting obligations.

23
VII. The Trial Court’s Failure to Review the Appellant/Mother’s Final Order
Request and Evaluate Evidence

The trial court erred by failing to review the Appellant/Mother’s Final Order

Request ^1 and by disregarding key exhibits and custody agreements filed before

the hearing. Texas Family Code § 153.002 requires that the child’s best interests

guide custody determinations, yet the court’s omission resulted in rulings

unsupported by a full evidentiary review.

The record reflects that the trial court did not adequately consider filed agreements

and appeared uncertain about pending motions, leading to rulings that lacked

proper evidentiary support (CR ^1_; RR Vol. 1, p. 5 & 6). Texas courts have held

that failure to evaluate material evidence and structured custody agreements results

in improper judgments. See In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010).

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Appellant/Mother’s Final Order Request ^1 and the material evidence filed

before the hearing.

24
VIII. The Trial Court’s Failure to Incorporate the Subsequent Parenting
Agreement into the Final Custody Order

The trial court erred by failing to incorporate the Subsequent Parenting Agreement

into the Final Custody Order. The agreement was negotiated in good faith, filed

with the court, and intended to supplement the partial Mediated Settlement

Agreement (MSA), which was limited due to time constraints. The Subsequent

Agreement addressed unresolved issues that could not be finalized during

mediation ( Vol. 1, p. 5 & 6 ), yet the trial court omitted its terms entirely from the

Final Order ( Vol.1, p. 37 & 38 ).

This omission disregarded binding commitments between the parties and created

uncertainty in enforcement, undermining the child’s stability and continuity. Texas

Family Code § 153.002 requires custody orders to prioritize reliability and the

child’s best interests. By ignoring the Subsequent Agreement, the trial court failed

to honor structured terms designed to protect the child’s well‑being.

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Subsequent Parenting Agreement filed in the record.

25
IX. The Trial Court’s Lack of Sufficient Legal Findings and Rationale in Its
Decisions

The trial court erred by failing to provide detailed legal findings and reasoning for

its rulings, making it impossible to determine the basis upon which custody

modifications were denied or granted. Texas courts are required to provide clear

judicial explanations, allowing parties to understand the foundation of rulings that

affect parental rights and child custody arrangements ( CR pg. 103 ). This request

was filed and accepted on 2/28/2025 by Efile and listed under Envelope Number:

97899316

The absence of sufficient legal findings in the final custody order undermines

transparency, prevents effective appellate review, and creates ambiguity regarding

the court’s consideration of material evidence. Without clear rationale, the order

fails to demonstrate compliance with Texas Family Code § 153.002, which

requires custody determinations to prioritize the child’s best interests.

The record reflects that the Appellant/Mother filed a request for findings of fact

and conclusions of law, but never received a response to the original request or the

motion (CR 103 ).

Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to issue detailed

26
findings of fact and conclusions of law, ensuring transparency and compliance

with procedural due process.

X. The Trial Court’s Failure to Evaluate Material Evidence Leading to
Erroneous Custody Rulings

The trial court erred by failing to evaluate key evidence and motions before issuing

custody rulings. Texas Family Code § 153.002 mandates that the child’s best

interests must be the primary consideration in custody determinations, yet the court

disregarded important materials and testimony necessary to assess the child’s

stability and parental involvement.

__The record reflects that the trial court did not adequately consider [Final Order

Request / unresolved issues / testimony regarding custody terms], as noted in [ ^1

Vol. 1, p. 5& 6 ].

This omission created a flawed custody decision that does not reflect the child’s

stability needs or parental involvement records. Texas courts have recognized that

failure to evaluate material evidence results in improper judgments. See In re J.D.,

304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010). The trial court’s failure to engage in a thorough

evidentiary review constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring appellate correction.

27
Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of all material evidence properly filed in the record.

XI. The Trial Court’s Failure to Provide Clear Judicial Questioning Violated
Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process requires that all parties in a child custody dispute be

afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case. Texas Family Code

§ 153.009(b) mandates that the trial court must consider direct testimony and

ensure all parties understand the nature and scope of judicial inquiries.

In this case, the judge’s questioning lacked clarity, leading the Appellant/Mother to

repeatedly request clarification before responding. Confusing phrasing hindered

her ability to provide accurate testimony, potentially resulting in unfavorable

judicial interpretations. The court failed to address concerns regarding vague

inquiries, violating Texas Family Code § 105.003, which guarantees the right to

properly present testimony affecting custody determinations. Courts must avoid

ambiguous questioning to prevent misinterpretations that may lead to unjust

rulings. See In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010).

28
Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider

testimony within a fair procedural framework, ensuring that judicial questioning is

clear, structured, and consistent with statutory due process requirements.

XII. The Trial Court’s Failure to Consider Relevant Prior Case Information
and Its Impact on Custody Determination

The trial court erred by failing to account for the Appellee/Father’s history of

harassment, noncompliance with custody agreements, and refusal to follow

structured parenting schedules, despite the Appellant/Mother’s continued efforts to

accommodate his inconsistencies as the more responsible parent. Additionally, the

court failed to implement necessary legal protections ensuring stability in custody

arrangements, particularly during instances of hostility and uncooperative behavior

from the Appellee/Father.

A. The Appellee/Father’s History of Harassment and Noncompliance

Immediately following the child’s birth, the Appellee/Father engaged in verbal and

electronic harassment, creating a hostile environment for the Appellant/Mother

during a critical recovery period.

29
Despite legally binding custody agreements, the Appellee/Father has continuously

failed to adhere to structured schedules, forcing the Appellant/Mother to adjust

weekly to his inconsistencies.

Under Texas Family Code § 153.002, courts must prioritize the child’s best

interests by ensuring stable and reliable parenting schedules. Additionally, Texas

Family Code § 153.004 requires courts to consider a parent’s history of harassment

in custody determinations, which the trial court failed to evaluate properly.

B. The Need for Judicial Protections to Prevent Further Instability

The Appellee/Father’s repeated hostility and unwillingness to comply with

co‑parenting agreements demonstrate the urgent need for legally enforceable

protections.

The record reflects testimony and filings referencing his pattern of aggression ( RR

Vol. 1, p. 26 & 27).

Texas courts have recognized the importance of structured custody arrangements

in cases involving parental hostility. See In the Interest of A.A.E., a Minor Child v.

107th District Court of Cameron County. The trial court’s failure to weigh this

history constitutes an abuse of discretion requiring appellate correction.

30
Request for Relief

The Appellant/Mother respectfully petitions the appellate court to reverse the trial

court’s custody determinations and remand with instructions to reconsider in light

of the Appellee/Father’s history of harassment, noncompliance, and hostility, as

documented in the record, and to apply the statutory requirements of Texas Family

Code §§ 153.002 and 153.004.

9. CONCLUSION

The Appellant/Mother respectfully requests that this Court reverse the trial court’s

custody determinations and remand for reconsideration consistent with Texas

Family Code §§ 153.002 and 153.004, ensuring that the best interests of the minor

child, I.C.S., remain the highest priority in these proceedings.

Throughout this process, the Appellant/Mother has demonstrated unwavering

commitment, resilience, and dedication to her child’s emotional, physical, and

psychological well‑being. She has provided a stable, nurturing home and

maintained full compliance with all court orders and parental obligations. In

contrast, the trial court’s failure to enforce custody agreements, incorporate the

Subsequent Parenting Agreement, evaluate material evidence, and provide

sufficient findings of fact has placed the child’s stability and security at risk.

31
The record reflects that the Appellee/Father has a history of harassment, repeated

failure to adhere to structured parenting schedules, and noncompliance with court

orders. Texas Family Code § 153.004 requires courts to consider such history in

custody determinations, yet the trial court disregarded this statutory mandate.

These omissions undermine the reliability of the custody order and necessitate

appellate intervention.

Additionally, the Appellee/Father’s repeated failure to fulfill medical obligations

has jeopardized the child’s health and recovery. His refusal to attend medical

visits, disregard for post‑surgical care requirements, and misrepresentation of the

child’s condition demonstrate a lack of concern for the child’s well‑being. Given

that untreated medical conditions such as Hypospadias can result in lifelong

complications, the trial court’s failure to safeguard medical decision‑making

authority constitutes an abuse of discretion.

To promote judicial efficiency and fairness, the Appellant/Mother respectfully

requests that this Court issue its ruling based on the appellate filings and record

evidence. If further clarification is necessary, the Court should allow written

submissions rather than requiring another in‑person trial, thereby ensuring that all

concerns are adequately addressed without unnecessary delay.

32
By reversing and remanding the trial court’s custody determinations, this Court

will ensure a fair resolution that properly considers all relevant agreements, prior

case information, medical concerns, and parental conduct patterns. The

Appellant/Mother urges this Court to take decisive action, reinforcing the legal

protections necessary to safeguard the minor child’s stability, security, and best

interests.

Respectfully Submitted,

Nanyamka Sims
Email: dallasccfiles@gmail.com

10. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This is to certify that this brief complies with Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure because it is computer generated and includes as counted by

the word count feature included in Microsoft Word. This brief also complies with

typeface requirements because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced

typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font for text.

33
11. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing brief has been served
on all parties. Service was accomplished by :

Nanyamka Sims, EFILE

Appendix Prefatory Note

The Clerk’s Record and Reporter’s Record have already been filed with this Court

and are available for review in their entirety. This Appendix is provided solely for

convenience and contains key excerpts, agreements, statutory provisions, and case

law cited in this brief. For lengthy documents such as the Mediated Settlement

Agreement and the Final Order Request ^1, only the specific pages referenced in

the argument sections are included herein. The full documents remain available in

the official record previously transmitted to the Court.

34
12. APPENDIX

Appendix Table of Contents

Tab A – Final Custody Order (Judgment Appealed)

Tab B – Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) (provided separately in

Court record)

Tab C – Subsequent Parenting Agreement

Tab D – Appellant/Mother’s Final Order Request (^1 )

Tab E – Incorrect Filing of Final Order submitted by Appellee/Father

Tab F – Dismissal Order for Grandmother (prior case context)

Tab G – Relevant Statutory Provisions

• Texas Family Code § 153.002

• Texas Family Code § 153.004

• Texas Family Code § 153.009(b)

• Texas Family Code § 105.003

Tab H – Case Law Excerpts

35
• In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010)

• In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2013)

• In the Interest of A.A.E., a Minor Child v. 107th District Court of Cameron

County

• In re Marriage of Brown, 768 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App. 1989)

APPENDIX A: Final Custody Order (Judgment Appealed)

36
37
APPENDIX B: Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) (provided separately

in Court record)

38
APPENDIX C: Subsequent Parenting Agreement

39
APPENDIX C: Subsequent Parenting Agreement

40
APPENDIX D: Appellant/Mother’s Final Order Request

^1 Certain filings referenced herein appear in the trial court’s docket but were omitted

from the Clerk’s Record transmitted to this Court. Appellant has filed a request pursuant to Tex.

R. App. P. 34.5(c) to supplement the record, and has requested that the trial court clerk provide a

certified copy to Appellant and transmit the complete record to this Court. For ease of reference

in this brief, citations to these documents are abbreviated and tied back to this footnote until

supplementation is complete.

41
APPENDIX E: Incorrect Filing of Final Order submitted by Appellee/Father
Pages 104 – 124. Only the first and last pages are listed in the Appendix. Please
review the Court Reports for full documents.

42
APPENDIX E: Incorrect Filing of Final Order submitted by Appellee/Father

43
APPENDIX F: Dismissal Order for Grandmother

44
APPENDIX G: Relevant Statutory Provisions

§ 153.002 – Best Interest of the Child

"The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the
court in determining issues of conservatorship, possession, and access."

§ 153.132 – Rights of Parent Appointed Sole Managing Conservator

A parent designated as the sole managing conservator shall have exclusive rights,
including but not limited to:

1. The right to establish the primary residence of the child.
2. The right to make decisions concerning the child’s education.
3. The right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment.
4. The right to direct the moral and religious training of the child.

This provision supports the Appellant/Mother’s request for sole managing
conservatorship, ensuring that she has the exclusive authority to make essential
decisions without disruption or interference from the Appellee/Father.

§ 153.134 – Court-Ordered Sole Managing Conservatorship

This statute provides criteria for awarding sole managing conservatorship,
particularly when joint conservatorship is deemed detrimental to the child’s well-
being. Courts may award sole managing conservatorship when:

• There is a history of parental absenteeism.
• A parent has failed to comply with structured parenting time.
• The best interests of the child would be better served by one parent
maintaining exclusive decision-making authority.

This reinforces the Appellant/Mother’s request, as the Appelle/Father’s repeated
noncompliance, missed visitations, and disregard for medical responsibilities
demonstrate the necessity of awarding sole conservatorship to the
Appellant/Mother.

45
§ 6.711 – Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

This statute mandates that courts must provide written findings of fact and
conclusions of law when requested by a party in a suit affecting the parent-child
relationship. It ensures that judicial decisions are transparent, reviewable, and
based on documented evidence.

• Key Provision:
o "In a suit for dissolution of a marriage in which the court has
rendered a judgment dividing the estate of the parties, on request by a
party, the court shall state in writing its findings of fact and
conclusions of law, including the characterization and value of all
assets, liabilities, claims, and offsets on which disputed evidence has
been presented."

Appendix H – Case Law Excerpts

• Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976)

Excerpt: “The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration
of the court in determining issues of conservatorship, possession, and access.”

• In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. App. 2010)

Excerpt: “Custody arrangements must reflect the parent who actively maintains
stability, commitment, and responsibility.”

• In re J.M., 396 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. App. 2013)

Excerpt: “A parent’s neglect of medical responsibilities is grounds for custody
reconsideration.”

46
• In the Interest of A.A.E., a Minor Child v. 107th District Court of Cameron
County

Excerpt: “Courts must ensure procedural fairness and adherence to statutory
mandates in custody proceedings.”

• In re Marriage of Brown, 768 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. App. 1989)

Excerpt: “Custody orders should be flexible enough to accommodate practical
concerns such as parental schedules and the child’s routine.”

47