Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 68198
consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman.
Aaron James Sparkman, appeals from an order modifying his
child support obligation as to his son, J.W.S. On appeal, he
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
order, arguing that the court did not consider his after-tax
income. We affirm.
Texas Attorney General filed suit for modification of a child
support order entered in June 2012. The case was heard by a
Title IV-D associate judge on June 5, 2018. The associate
judge signed an order finding that there had been a material
and substantial change in the circumstances of the child or
the parties or that it had been three years since the prior
child support order was rendered. The court found that
Sparkman's gross monthly resources were $5, 561.01 and
that his net monthly resources were $4, 138.55. The court
ordered Sparkman to pay $178 per month in medical support and
$724 per month in child support, a $27 per month decrease
from his prior child support obligation.
appeal, Sparkman argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by ordering him to pay approximately $900 in
medical and child support each month. Although not in the
record, he asserts in his brief that he earns only $10 per
hour at a 40-hour per week job.
did not make a timely or proper request for the record. Such
a request must be made to the official court reporter or
recorder "at or before the time for perfecting
appeal." Tex.R.App.P. 34.6; see In re D.D.A.,
No. 14-05-00046-CV, 2006 WL 1547869, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] June 8, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Sparkman
filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 2018. On July 30, 2018,
he filed a document asking the district clerk's office to
send "all documents" and the "affidavit of
deemed indigency" to the court of appeals. No request
for a record from the hearing appears in the record.
general, a trial court's ruling on child support will not
be reversed on appeal unless there is a clear abuse of
discretion. Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109
(Tex. 1990); Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26, 29
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). The test is
whether the trial court acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or
without reference to guiding rules or principles. Rogers
v. Rogers, No. 01-15-00224-CV, 2016 WL 3162299, at *5
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 2, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (citing Brejon, 314 S.W.3d at 29).
challenges are not independent points of error in the
child-support context, but are 'incorporated into an
abuse of discretion determination.'" Bello v.
Bello, No. 01-11-00594-CV, 2013 WL 4507876, at *2 (Tex.
App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 22, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(quoting McGuire v. McGuire, 4 S.W.3d 382, 387 n.2
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.)). When
reviewing a discretionary ruling of the trial court that
depends on evidence, we consider (1) whether the trial court
had sufficient information upon which to exercise its
discretion, and (2) whether the trial court erred in its
application of discretion. See Bello, 2013 WL
4507876, at *2; Moreno v. Perez, 363 S.W.3d 725, 735
(Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). A trial court
does not abuse its discretion when there is some evidence of
a substantive and probative character to support its ruling.
Bello, 2013 WL 4507876, at *2
the appellant bears the burden to present a sufficient record
to show error requiring reversal." Curry v. Tex.
Dep't of Pub. Safety, 472 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.). "When no
reporter's record is filed, we indulge every presumption
in favor of the trial court's findings."
Rogers, 2016 WL 3162299, at *3; see Curry,
472 S.W.3d at 350; Willms v. Ams. Tire Co., 190
S.W.3d 796, 803 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied)
("[W]hen an appellant fails to bring a reporter's
record, an appellate court must presume the evidence
presented was sufficient to support the trial court's
order."). "Furthermore, without a complete record
brought forward by the appellant, the court will conclude
that the appellant has waived the points of error dependent
on the state of the evidence." Curry, 472
S.W.3d at 350.
is no reporter's record of the evidence presented in this
case, and Sparkman did not file a formal bill of exception.
See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(c). Without a record of the
evidence, we know little about the underlying basis for the
court's findings, and we are unable to determine whether
the court abused its discretion in modifying the order for
medical and child support. See Rogers, 2016 WL
3162299, at *5; D.D.A., 2006 WL 1547869, at *3.
Because we must presume that the evidence presented at the
hearing was sufficient to support the order, we hold that
Sparkman did not meet his burden to ...