IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF KIMBERLY KOENIG AND CHARLES HEATH KOENIG
Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 70204
consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Brown.
William J. Boyce Justice
Charles Heath Koenig appeals a final judgment in a suit to
modify the parent-child relationship. We affirm.
and Kimberly (Koenig) Baize divorced on November 15, 2013. In
the final divorce decree, Charles and Kimberly were appointed
joint managing conservators of their three children. Charles
was given the exclusive right to designate the children's
primary residence. Neither Charles's nor Kimberly's
access to the children required supervision.
brought a petition to modify the parent-child relationship
alleging the children's circumstances materially and
substantially had changed. He requested, among other things,
that Kimberly be denied access to the children or that her
periods of access be supervised. Kimberly filed a cross
petition to modify the parent-child relationship. Kimberly
requested, among other things, that Charles be denied access
to the children and that she be appointed the sole managing
conservator. Charles nonsuited his petition and the parties
proceeded to trial on the issues raised in Kimberly's
trial occurred in December 2015. Among other witnesses, the
trial court heard testimony from psychologist Maria Alvarez
and Carolyn Holley, an investigator appointed to conduct a
social study. The trial court signed a "Final Judgment
in Suit to Modify Parent-Child Relationship" on March 3,
2016. The trial court ordered that Charles and Kimberly
continue as joint managing conservators with Kimberly having
the exclusive right to designate the children's primary
residence. The trial court further ordered that Charles's
access to the children would be limited as set out in six
steps. If Charles successfully completed each one, then step
six allowed visitation under a standard possession order.
challenges the trial court's March 2016 judgment
modifying conservatorship. In his first issue, Charles
contends the judgment rests on legally insufficient evidence
and the trial court erred in relying on expert testimony from
psychologist Maria Alvarez. In his second issue, Charles
contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel during
the trial. Finally, in his third issue, Charles contends his
due process rights were violated with respect to notice of
the April 12, 2016 hearing on temporary orders.
appellant's brief "must contain a clear and concise
argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations
to authorities and to the record." Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(i).
An appellant's failure to comply with this rule may
result in waiver of issues on appeal. See, e.g.,
Canton-Carter v. Baylor Coll. of Med., 271 S.W.3d 928,
931-32 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The
argument in Charles's brief is not clear and does not
contain appropriate citation to authorities and the record.
Nonetheless, briefing rules should be construed liberally,
and "appellate courts should reach the merits of an
appeal whenever reasonably possible." Perry v.
Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex. 2008); see
also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), 38.9. To the extent
reasonably possible, we address Charles's contentions on
Temporary Orders Pending Appeal
initial matter, we address Charles's contention that our
review of the trial court's March 2016 judgment
encompasses a review of the trial court's temporary
orders signed on April 14, 2016, after the judgment ...