Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
IN THE INTEREST OF S.V. AND S.V., CHILDREN
Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968-V
Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell
L. BRIDGES, JUSTICE
Venkatraman (Father), a pro se party, appeals the trial
court's December 15, 2017 order on motion for judgment
nunc pro nunc and order in suit affecting the parent-child
relationship nunc pro tunc. We affirm.
and Mother divorced in 2004 and have two children, Anna and
Father has repeatedly been before this Court appealing
various orders and seeking mandamus relief regarding this
high-conflict custody case. The procedural background and
underlying facts are well-known to the parties; therefore, we
include only those facts necessary for disposition of the
issues raised by Father in this particular appeal.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
4, 2016, the trial court signed an order in suit affecting
the parent-child relationship nunc pro tunc. The order
contained the following child support provision:
IT IS ORDERED that Venky Venkatraman is obligated to pay and
shall pay to [Mother] child support of one thousand one
hundred eighteen dollars and seventy-two cents ($1118.72) per
month, with the first payment being due and payable on
December 1, 2015 and a like payment being due and payable on
the first day of each month thereafter until the first month
following of the earliest occurrence of one of the events
1. Any child reaches the age of eighteen years or graduates
from high school, whichever occurs later, subject to the
provisions for support beyond the age of eighteen years set
out below . . .
November 13, 2017, Mother filed a motion for judgment nunc
pro tunc or to reform judgment because the May 4, 2016 order
nunc pro tunc failed to include the correct child support
language, referred to as a "step down" provision.
As written, the May 4, 2016 order allowed Father to stop
paying any child support once Anna reached eighteen, but did
not require any further payment for Zoe. Mother's
subsequent motion for judgment nunc pro tunc sought to
include the following language related to child support:
Thereafter, Venky Venkatraman is ORDERED to pay [Mother]
child support of eight-hundred and ninety-five dollars and
zero cents ($895.00) per month, due and payable on the 1st
day of the first month immediately following the date of the
earliest occurrence of one of the events specified above for
another child and a like sum of eight-hundred and ninety-five
dollars and zero cents ($895.00) due and payable on the 1st
day of each month thereafter until the next occurrence of one
of the events specified above for the other child.
the original March 4, 2016 SAPCR included the above-language,
but was left out in the May 4, 2016 order.
filed objections to Mother's motion for judgment nunc pro
tunc or to reform judgment. On December 15, 2017, the trial
court granted Mother's motion and signed the order in
suit affecting the parent-child relationship nunc pro tunc,
which included Mother's proposed language. On December
28, 2017, Father requested findings of fact and conclusions
of law pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 296 and
297. The trial court did not issue any findings or
conclusions. This appeal followed.
of Fact and ...