In the Interest of D.Z.C., a Child v. the State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00565-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.Z.C., a Child

From the County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-03-6698-CCL
Honorable James Rausch, Associate Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Lori Massey Brissette, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Appellant, J.O.F.C., proceeding pro se, appeals from a child support review order

concerning his child D.Z.C. 1 We reverse and remand, so that a proper record can be made.
0F

BACKGROUND

Appellee, the Office of the Attorney General, filed a petition for the confirmation of a non-

agreed child support review order. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 233.020. Appellee sought a

modification in the amounts of medical and child support that appellant was required to pay to the

mother of D.Z.C. On July 28, 2024, the trial court signed an order largely conforming to the order

1
To protect the identity of the minor child who is the subject of this suit, we refer to the child and appellant by their
initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8(b)(2).
04-24-00565-CV

presented by appellee. The trial court also signed findings of fact, indicating that on July 17, 2024,

an evidentiary hearing was held on the confirmation of the non-agreed order and that a record of

the proceeding was made by audio recording. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(a)(2).

Appellant timely appealed from this order. He filed a brief after only the clerk’s record

had been filed. Appellee then filed its brief. However, because no reporter’s record had been filed

and because we had not previously notified appellant of his deficiency in failing to cause a

reporter’s record to be filed, we issued an order specifying that if appellant wished for this appeal

to be considered and decided with a reporter’s record, he must make arrangements to have the

reporter’s record prepared and filed with this court within a month. See id. R. 37.3(c) (allowing

decision without a reporter’s record after “first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable

opportunity to cure”). 2 1F

Nearly a month later, appellant responded with a letter describing his unsuccessful attempts

to secure the reporter’s record from the July 17, 2024 hearing. He stated that he had contacted the

court coordinator for the Medina County Court at Law, who advised him that no recording of the

hearing exists. Appellant attached to his letter an email from the court coordinator, which states:

“Our office has received and reviewed the recordings for that docket day and found no record of

Case #15036698CCL. The Attorney General’s language on the order states that a record was made

however, that is not correct.”

Appellee then responded in a filing:

In his letter, appellant represents that the court coordinator of the Medina County
Court at Law stated that there was not an audio recording of the hearing in existence
because no such audio recording was taken. If true, appellant would be entitled to
a new trial under circumstances set out in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
34.6(f). See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f).

2
Because the July 17, 2024 hearing was electronically recorded (as indicated on the findings), the reporter’s record
would have consisted of certified copies of all tapes and logs prepared by the court recorder. See id. TEX. R. APP. P.
34.6(a)(2); see also id. R. 13.2 (specifying duties of a court recorder).

-2-
04-24-00565-CV

The representations in the OAG’s brief regarding the reporter’s record were based
on the items in the clerk’s record including the final order on appeal. The trial court
signed the final order with the finding that an audio recording of this virtual hearing
had been made. As a party to the proceeding, the OAG did not administer any
recording process. Therefore, the OAG cannot independently confirm or deny the
existence of an audio recording of the virtual hearing.

In light of the parties’ filings, we ordered the court coordinator to file a response, specifying

whether an audio recording had been made of trial court proceedings and, if so, whether the

recording currently exists. The court coordinator filed a response, stating:

I was the IV-D Court Coordinator at the time of this hearing. There was a visiting
Judge (Associate Judge James Rausch), sitting by assignment. There was no record
made. This is a IV-D Court and generally it keeps a record by audio and video by
zoom.

I am no longer in the same position, as I moved with Judge Kelley T. Kimble when
she became the 38th Judicial District Judge. The Office of Court Administration
currently has possession of all the previous recordings for the IV-D court. It took
some time to pull all those recordings to verify. We have now confirmed that there
is no record for the case on Appeal.

DISCUSSION

This appeal arises from a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (“SAPCR”). See TEX.

FAM. CODE ANN. § 101.032(a) (defining SAPCR to include a suit in which child support is

requested). The Texas Family Code requires that, for contested hearings in such suits, a record be

made, “unless waived by the parties with the consent of the court.” Id. § 105.003(c). According

to the trial court’s findings, evidence was heard at the July 17, 2024 hearing, and the matter under

consideration was contested. However, as the court coordinator confirmed, there was no record

made of the hearing, despite the trial court’s findings, which inaccurately state that one was made.

Cf. In re L.A.S., No. 04-22-00368-CV, 2023 WL 8440518, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec.

6, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting SAPCR order inaccurately stated that parties waived the

making of a record); Wray v. Papp, 434 S.W.3d 297, 299 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.)

-3-
04-24-00565-CV

(same). Additionally, there is nothing in the clerk’s record to suggest that appellant waived the

making of a record, and appellee does not contend that he had. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §

105.003(c); Ramirez v. Sanchez, 871 S.W.2d 534, 535 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1994, no writ)

(reversing and remanding in SAPCR where no record was made and appellant was not present at

hearing to waive the making of a record).

Therefore, based on the clerk’s record and the parties’ and court coordinator’s filings in

response to our orders, appellant has established a violation of section 105.003(c). See TEX. FAM.

CODE ANN. § 105.003(c); L.A.S., 2023 WL 8440518, at *2 (“The fact that no record was taken

violates Texas Family Code section 105.003(c) and constitutes reversible error.”); see also Stubbs

v. Stubbs, 685 S.W.2d 643, 645–46 (Tex. 1985) (holding trial court’s failure to ensure recording

of SAPCR proceeding constituted error on the face of the record).

Moreover, the trial court’s error “probably prevented . . . appellant from properly

presenting [his] case” on appeal, which requires reversal. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(2). Appellant

generally complains in his brief about the sufficiency of the evidence to support the amount of

medical and child support ordered, but we cannot evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence without

a reporter’s record. See Wray, 434 S.W.3d at 299 (determining that violation of section 105.003(c)

was reversible error where appellant’s legal sufficiency claim could not be evaluated without a

reporter’s record); see also Squires v. McHale, 691 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no

pet.) (explaining legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence inform whether a trial court abuses

its discretion by ordering the modification of child support).

Consequently, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on the confirmation of the non-

agreed order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(d); 44.1(a)(2); L.A.S., 2023 WL 8440518, at *2 (reversing

and remanding for a new final-orders hearing where no record was made); Walker v. Stefanic, 898

-4-
04-24-00565-CV

S.W.2d 347, 348 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995, no writ) (reversing and remanding for new trial

on issue of retroactive child support where reporter’s record, consisting of electronic recording,

was not preserved); In re E.M.D., No. 10-19-00034-CV, 2021 WL 926574, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Waco Mar. 10, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding “failure to comply with the rules for making an

electronic record was error” and reversing and remanding, so proper record could be made). 3 2F

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand this cause, so that a proper record can

be made of the hearing on the confirmation of the non-agreed order.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

3
In its letter, quoted above, appellee directs us to Rule 34.6(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. However,
we do not apply that rule because the rule concerns a lost or destroyed record, and, here, no record was taken. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f).

-5-