Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Wendy A. Allen and John P. Mancini Jr. are the parents of L.M.M. Allen and Mancini divorced in 1997. At that time, Allen and Mancini were named joint managing conservators of L.M.M. The trial court ordered that Allen would have the right to establish the primary residence of the child. In August 2003, Mancini filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship seeking to be appointed the managing conservator with the right to establish the primary residence of L.M.M. The trial court entered an order in which it removed Allen as the managing conservator with the exclusive right to establish the primary residence of L.M.M. and appointed Mancini as the managing conservator with the exclusive right to establish the primary residence of the child. HOLDING:Affirmed. Allen complains that the trial court erred when it admitted a tape recording into evidence. The tape recording contains conversations that Mancini taped between L.M.M. and Allen. The tape recording also contains messages left by Allen on Mancini’s answering machine, and it also contains conversations between Mancini and Allen. Allen contends that, under the “state wiretap law,” the recordings were “illegally obtained” and, therefore, not admissible. Allen cites Collins v. Collins, 904 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 1995), writ den’d, 923 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1996), as authority. In Collins, the child’s father recorded conversations between the child and his mother. The father offered the tape recording into evidence to impeach the mother’s testimony. The trial court admitted the tape recording into evidence. On appeal, the court stated that the “state wiretap statute makes it illegal to tape a conversation”without the consent’ of the person being recorded.” In Collins, the court relied upon Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 123. Chapter 123 basically addresses interception of communications. The court declines to follow Collins because Chapter 123 does not address the admissibility of a tape-recorded conversation at trial and, assuming Chapter 123 does apply, when a party to the communication consents to the interception of the communication, there is no violation of Chapter 123. Chapter 123 provides a cause of action for a person whose communications have been wrongfully obtained; it does not address the admissibility of that evidence absent an injunction prohibiting the divulgence or use of information obtained by an “interception.” Further, the court finds that Mancini had the authority to consent on behalf of L.M.M. to the tape recording of conversations between L.M.M. and Allen. Even if the federal wiretap laws are applicable here, Mancini was entitled to consent to the tape recording, both for himself and for L.M.M. as her joint managing conservator, under the criteria set forth in Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998). Because there was consent to the tape recording, federal wiretap laws did not prohibit the introduction of the tape recording in this case. OPINION:Wright, J.; Arnot, C.J., and Wright and McCall, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.