Sometimes in law, there are no winners. The 2018 case of Bos v. Smith, 556 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2018), is one of those cases. It contains a long and sordid tale, but the bottom line is that a father sued his former in-laws under Chapter 42 of the Family Code for aiding or assisting his ex-wife in blocking his visitation rights. The trial court awarded him $3 million “for mental anguish caused by [his in-laws’] interference with possessory rights” and $236,000 “for economic damages related to [his] legal defense.” Bos v. Smith, 492 S.W.3d 361, 374-75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016), rev’d by Bos v. Smith, 556 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. 2018). The court of appeals affirmed the mental anguish damages but reversed on the economic damages. The Supreme Court reversed the whole thing and rendered judgment in the in-laws’ favor. To try to keep them straight, I’ll refer to the Court of Appeals’ opinion as “COA” and the Supreme Court’s opinion as “SCOTEX.”
Trisha and Craig were married in 2004. They divorced in 2008 with two young kids, both under 3 years old. Their divorce decree contained a standard possession order modified to address visitation before the kids’ third birthdays. Apparently, Trisha was “stingy” with visitation during the first year and eventually orchestrated a “scheme” to deprive Craig of visitation by coaching her kids to make unfounded accusations of sexual assault. SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 297-99. “DFPS ultimately ruled out all sexual-abuse allegations,” and no charges were filed. SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 298. But Trisha still refused to let Craig see the kids. On August 31, 2011, the trial court “held [Trisha] in contempt and imposed jail time for violating the standard possession order.” SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 298. But, according to Craig’s attorney: “I walked out of this courtroom and I had not touched the button to go down the elevator when I was approached by the other lawyer saying, ‘We’ll sign a parental termination immediately’.” COA, 492 S.W.3d at 374 n.11. The trial court stayed the contempt order to allow time for Trisha to reconsider, but ultimately terminated her parental rights. SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 298-99.
But that’s not the end of the story. Throughout this ordeal, Trisha’s parents had tried to help her with the kids. In fact, the first battle was fought when Trisha asked her mother to take the kids to a birthday party even though it was Craig’s turn to have them. SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 297. Things got really bad really fast. DFPS (more commonly known as “CPS”) got involved, and Trisha’s parents agreed to stay with her and supervise her contact with the children as part of DFPS’s safety plan. But, according to the Supreme Court, they
quickly found their monitoring duties burdensome, and Grandfather began pressuring DFPS for a resolution. At one point, at his wit’s end with the situation, Grandfather told DFPS that (1) Mother was a “perfect” mother; (2) Father was a nut with poor parenting skills; and (3) Father used to abuse his daughters and would brainwash them.SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 298.
Craig was upset about his in-laws’ actions. After Trisha voluntarily terminated her rights, Craig sued his former in-laws under Chapter 42 of the Family Code for aiding and assisting her in blocking his visitation.
Chapter 42 of the Family Code says that a “person who takes or retains possession of a child or who conceals the whereabouts of a child in violation of a possessory right of another person may be liable for damages to that person.” Tex. Fam. Code § 42.002(a). The available damages include the actual costs and expenses incurred locating the child, recovering possession, and enforcing the possession order, as well as any mental anguish damages. Exemplary damages are available if the interfering person “acted with malice or with an intent to cause harm to the plaintiff.” Tex. Fam. Code § 42.006. And anybody who “aids or assists” the interfering person “is jointly and severally liable” with them if they either (1) had actual notice of the existence and contents of the possession order, or (2) had reasonable cause to believe that an order existed and that their actions “were likely to violate that order.” Tex. Fam. Code § 42.003(a).
The Supreme Court rendered judgment in favor of Trisha’s parents for two main reasons. First:
Chapter 42 does not cover mere schemes. Section 42.003 allows liability for assisting “in conduct for which a cause of action is authorized by this chapter,” and a cause of action is authorized for actually “tak[ing] or retain[ing]” possession of a child or “conceal[ing]” the child’s whereabouts, not for planning to do so.SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 301.
In other words, Trisha’s schemes weren’t enough, and merely taking sides is not enough. Chapter 42 requires specific action to prevent visitation.
Second, Craig proved “only one specific violation of the standard possession order—the two-hour birthday-party weekend.” SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 301. But he did not prove that his former in-laws actually knew that it was his weekend or that they knew that their actions “were likely to violate” the order. SCOTEX, 556 S.W.3d at 301. He did not prove that they knew what the terms of the visitation order were (i.e., that it was his weekend). And, because the parties had done visitation by agreement for most of the time post-divorce and because of the onset of the DFPS investigation, Trisha’s parents may or may not have known that it was Craig’s weekend and that they should not have kept the kids that weekend.
Without proof of a specific, knowing violation of the possession order, Craig’s claim under Chapter 42 failed.