Breaking and associated brands will be offline for scheduled maintenance Friday Feb. 26 9 PM US EST to Saturday Feb. 27 6 AM EST. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Brenda Garcia was born on March 27, 1984, to Luz Elena Garcia and Carlos Duran. At the time, Duran was married to another woman and Garcia worked as a live-in housekeeper for a family in El Paso. Garcia’s sister cared for the child in Juarez, Mexico, while Garcia worked in El Paso. One weekend each month, Garcia would visit Brenda in Juarez, and every week she would send money for her daughter’s support. Once Brenda turned 15, the necessary paperwork was completed so she could attend high school in the United States. She moved to El Paso and lived with another relative. Throughout this period of time, Duran and Garcia continued to date. In 2001, three weeks after his wife passed away, Duran asked Garcia to leave her job and move into his home. The couple lived together for 15 months. After they separated, the attorney general brought suit to establish paternity and child support. Following a bench trial, the court ordered Duran to pay $7,680 in retroactive child support. At the time of trial, Brenda was already 18. No order for current support was rendered. The trial court entered formal findings of fact. He found that Duran’s actual income was never established, but he had an income in excess of the minimum hourly wage and net monthly resources of at least $803. Duran does not challenge these findings on appeal. The trial court applied the statutory child support guidelines of 20 percent to his net monthly resources to find that child support should be established at $160 per month. He then ordered retroactive support which was reduced to judgment and assigned to the Attorney General. The judgment represents support of $160 per month for a period of 48 months before suit was filed. HOLDING:Affirmed. The trial court had the discretion to order that someone other than Garcia or the attorney general on her behalf should receive the appropriate child support. “[W]e decline Duran’s invitation to legislate from the bench that a support obligee must have actual physical possession of a child.” Duran testified he gave Garcia cash on various occasions in amounts ranging from $40 to $100 per week. He also testified he gave money to Brenda for food and clothes when she moved to El Paso. Duran did not provide the trial court with any evidence of the cash disbursements, nor did he quantify the monies actually paid. On the other hand, Garcia testified that she never received any money from him. Duran contends her testimony was not credible because she waited to pursue child support until after their relationship ended and Brenda had turned 18. But the trial court as the trier of fact determines the credibility of a witness’s testimony. The trial court may have considered Duran’s testimony but found Garcia’s testimony to be more credible. Such a decision was well within the trial court’s discretion. Duran contends the imposition of the award will create financial hardship. He is 62 and about to retire from his job. Thereafter, his sole income will consist of Social Security benefits. He did testify, however, that he would be interested in continuing to work if other jobs were available. Finally, Duran argues other factors should have been considered. Specifically, he contends the trial court should have considered the amount of time Garcia actually lived with Brenda and the fact that the child is now an adult. These factors are mentioned in Texas Family Code �154.123 which addresses the award of support outside of the statutory guidelines. Here, the trial court ordered Duran to pay 20 percent of his monthly net resources in accordance with the guidelines. While the court might well have considered these factors, it was not an abuse of discretion to fail to do so. OPINION:McClure, J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure and Chew, 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.