Appeal from the 246th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2012-09649
consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.
appeals from the trial court's order in a suit to modify
the parent-child relationship. The dispute in this case
concerns whether the six-year-old Child immediately may
travel by air unaccompanied, or do so only after reaching
ten. Mother contends that the trial court erroneously failed
to incorporate the parties' Rule 11 agreement concerning
the "Provisions for Long Distance Travel" after
Father revoked his consent to the agreement and the trial
court held a bench trial concerning the best interest of
Father revoked his consent to the Rule 11 agreement and
Mother does not challenge the trial court's best-interest
finding, we affirm.
and Father were joint managing conservators with Mother
having the exclusive right to designate the primary
residence. Each parent filed petitions to modify the
parent-child relationship. The parties signed a Rule 11 agreement
covering all issues. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. The
parties agreed to remain joint managing conservators and that
Father's support obligation would increase, among other
things. One provision related to the age at which Child would
be allowed to travel by air without the supervision of
5. The child shall not board any airlines or planes without
the supervision of [Father] until such time as the child
reaches the age of ten, and order shall include
detailed long distance travel provisions as set forth in
[Father's] amended pleadings.
(emphasis added). Father requested in his amended petition an
order stating that "the child shall not travel alone
between the residence of [Mother] and that of [Father] until
the child reaches the age of five years."
(emphasis added). Father requested an order for various
provisions governing "the arrangements for the travel of
the child to and from [Father] after the child reaches the
age of five years." Specifically, the arrangements
provided for each parent to surrender Child to a flight
attendant employed by the airline who would be flying on the
same flight with Child.
months after signing the Rule 11 agreement, Father filed a
"motion for partial revocation of Rule 11 agreement
based on coercion and duress concerning long distance travel
of the child and request for mediation." Father argued
that the Rule 11 agreement contained "conflicting
provisions that were not agreed to, " quoting paragraph
No. 5 about long-distance travel. Mother filed a "motion
to sign final order on petition to modify parent child
relationship" in the form attached to the motion, which
included the Rule 11 agreement.
trial, the court informed the parties that the court needed
"some evidence to show why this whole agreement is in
the best interest of this child." The court noted that
the parties did not have an agreement because Father
"revoked the agreement."
testified that she did not believe it was in Child's best
interest to fly unaccompanied at the age of six. Father
testified that he was asking the trial court to determine
that it was in Child's best interest to fly at the age of
five and older as an unaccompanied minor. Father testified
that Child would be accompanied by a flight attendant
throughout the entire flight. Father testified that Child
never would be left alone, and Child would not be in
trial court signed an order modifying the parent-child
relationship. The court stated that both parties appeared and
announced ready for trial. The court found that the
modification was in the best interest of Child and that the
court's orders were in the best interest of Child.
Regarding long-distance travel, the court ordered that Child
could travel by air unaccompanied after the age of
appeals, seeking modification of the judgment to prohibit
unaccompanied air ...