evidence rebuts presumption in Texas

2010Thus, the court may “order periodic child support payments in an amount other than that established by the guidelines if the evidence rebuts the presumption that application of the guidelines is in the best interest of the child and justifies a variance from the guidelines.” Id. § 154.123(a) (Vernon 2008); In re Marriage of Bertram, 981 S.W.2d 820, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.).

2010Thus, the court may “order periodic child support payments in an amount other than that established by the guidelines if the evidence rebuts the presumption that application of the guidelines is in the best interest of the child and justifies a variance from the guidelines.” Id. § 154.123(a) (Vernon 2008); In re Marriage of Bertram , 981 S.W.2d 820, 827 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.).

2005Code Ann. § 156.401 (Vernon Supp.2004-05) (providing that a court may modify a child support order if the circumstances have materially and substantially changed since the date of the order’s rendition); id. § 154.122 (Vernon 2002) (providing that application of support guidelines is rebutt-ably presumed to be in the best interest of the child); id. § 154.123 (setting out factors to consider if the evidence rebuts the presumption that application of the guidelines set out in the family code is in the best interest of the child); MacCallum v. MacCallum, 801 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex.App.-Corpus Chri

2005CODE ANN. § 156.401 (Vernon Supp.2004-05) (providing that a court may modify a child support order if the circumstances have materially and substantially changed since the date of the order's rendition); id. § 154.122 (Vernon 2002) (providing that application of support guidelines is rebuttably presumed to be in the best interest of the child); id. § 154.123 (setting out factors to consider if the evidence rebuts the presumption that application of the guidelines set out in the family code is in the best interest of the child); MacCallum v. MacCallum, 801 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex.App.-Corpus Chris

2025See Dean v. Garcia, 795 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, writ denied) (per curiam) (citing McIntosh v. Moore, 53 S.W. 611 , 613–14 (Tex. Civ.

2025See Dean v. Garcia, 795 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, writ denied) (per curiam) (citing McIntosh v. Moore, 53 S.W. 611 , 613–14 (Tex. Civ.

2020The Code sets forth a variety of additional factors a court may consider in determining whether it is in the child’s best interest to deviate from the guidelines, including the “age and needs 8 of the child,” the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child, the amount of time of possession of and access to a child, child care expenses incurred, “special or extraordinary educational . . . or other expenses of the parties or of the child,” and “any other reason consistent with the best interest of the child, taking into consideration the circumstances of the parents.” Id. §

2018In determining whether the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under the circumstances of a particular case, the Code further provides that the trial court “shall consider,” among other things, the age and needs of the child, the ability of the parents to contribute to the support of the child, the “financial resources available for the support of the child,” and “any other reason consistent with the best interest of the child, taking into consideration the circumstances of the parents.” Id. §154.123(a)(b); see also In re J.C.K., 143 S.W.3d 131, 136 (Tex. App.—Waco 2

2016See Stiles v. Resolution Trust Corp., 867 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.1993) (“[A] summary judgment cannot be affirmed on grounds not expressly set out in the motion or response.”).

2016Laws 2820 , 2820 (amended 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2015) (unless the Code requires another method or the parties otherwise agree, all required notices may be delivered via first-class mail) (amended 2011) (current version at Tex, Tax Code Ann. § 1.07(a)); 27 Dincans, 882 S.W.2d at 78 (explaining that the presumption of delivery “will disappear if the taxpayer presents evidence that he in fact never received the notice”). 28 Because the evidence rebuts the presumption of compliance with all statutory duties, and this was the only ground on which the Taxing Units sought summary judgment, the trial

2015Section 154.123(a) then provides that the court may order the child support payments to vary from the guidelines if the evidence rebuts the presumption that the application of the guidelines is in the best interest of the child and justifies a Rich v. Olah, 274 S.W.3d 878, 885 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).

2013Id. § 154.123(a); Dennis v. Smith, 962 S.W.2d 67, 72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. denied) (“The presumption is rebuttable by evidence that shows a variance is in the child’s best interests.”).

1982Allred v. Harris County Child Welfare Unit, 615 S.W.2d 803, 806 (Tex.Civ.App. [1st] 1980, no writ).