law-child support


RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN CHILD SUPPORT MATTERS  


In re Zandi, No. 07-0919  (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008)(Suppl. Op. on motion for rehearing)(child support contempt,
right to notice re: intent to revoke suspension of commitment)
IN RE REZA ZANDI; from Denton County; 2nd district (02-07-00348-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-18-07)
Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing
In Re Zandi, No. 07­0919 (Tex. May 30, 2008)(per curiam) (family law, child support contempt, habeas corpus
granted, due process violated, insufficient notice of charges)

In re OAG, No. 08-0165 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam)(mandamus) (TRO against Office of Texas Attorney General
in dispute over child support collection set aside by mandamus as void due to procedural deficiency).


PETITIONS DENIED BY TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN CASES FROM THE
COURTS OF APPEALS

07-0934  
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TROY BELL; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-06-00885-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 07-23-07)(family law, child support enforcement, no evidence of
arrearage)
The Office of the Attorney General of Texas appeals the trial court's take-nothing judgment dismissing the
attorney general's motion to enforce Troy D. Bell's child support obligation. The attorney general brings two
issues   See Footnote 1  on appeal: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding from evidence the
attorney general's payment records; (2) the record shows, as a matter of law, that Bell owed a child support
arrearage. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court's judgment. * * *
After reviewing the record, we conclude it supports the trial judge's decision that there is no evidence Bell
currently owes any child support arrearage. The attorney general acknowledges that under Beck and other
decisions from this Court, he bore the burden of establishing what child support payments were made and
what payments were required but not made. See Beck v. Walker, 154 S.W.3d 895, 903 (Tex. App.-Dallas
2005, no pet.). The record shows that no evidence of payments was admitted at the hearing. Given the
absence of evidence at the hearing, we conclude the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court's
judgment. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

08-0149
IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.D., B.J.D., AND W.G.D., CHILDREN; from Collin County; 5th district
(05-06-00463-CV, 242 S.W.3d 916, 01-08-08, pet. denied)
(family law, child support, motion to modify, reduction denied)
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there had not been a material and substantial
change in Father's circumstances that justified a reduction in Father's child support obligation. Therefore, we
affirm the trial court's order.