Texas Custody Case After Abduction & No Show for Deposition
Texas child custody, abduction, and attorney’s fees case summary.
Claudia Susana Martinez Jardon v. Gerd Pfister
The husband and wife in this El Paso County, Texas, case were married in 2004 and had one child. The mother filed for divorce in 2013, and most issues were resolved in a 2015 temporary order. At trial, however, the father testified that the mother had abducted the child to Mexico and has refused to divulge his whereabouts or allow the father to have any contact. The mother refused to comply with Texas court orders and instead initiated legal proceedings in Mexico to obtain custody. The mother didn’t appear at trial, but was represented by an attorney. When the father was awarded custody, a property settlement, and attorney’s fees of over $200,000, the mother appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, raising numerous issues.
One of the mother’s issues on appeal was whether it had been appropriate for the trial court to impose “death penalty” sanctions. The trial court had ordered the mother to appear for deposition at a specified place and time. This order stated that if the mother didn’t appear, she would be prohibited from offering any evidence at trial.
The appeals court first noted that this wasn’t truly a “death penalty” sanction. In a true death penalty sanction, the offending party loses the case because of the sanction. For example, it would be a death penalty sanction if a claim were stricken. In this case, all of the mother’s claims were intact, but she was precluded from offering evidence after failing to attend the deposition. The appeals court noted that it is a common sanction that a party can’t introduce evidence that was not timely disclosed. And it held that this case was one where she was merely prohibited from introducing the evidence that she failed to produce.
Furthermore, at trial, the mother did not attempt to introduce any evidence that had been excluded. For that reason, even if the lower court’s order had been error, it was not reversible.
In a lengthy opinion authored by Justice Gina M. Palafox, the appeals court addressed a number of other issues raised by the mother. In most cases, it affirmed these rulings as well. However, the controlling law regarding attorney’s fees had changed while the appeal was pending. For that reason, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a re-computation of the father’s attorney’s fees in light of the change in law. In all other respects, however, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court.
No. 08-17-00183-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2019).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee.
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
