Tex. Codes
» Family Code · TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · SUBTITLE B. SUITS AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP · CHAPTER 153. CONSERVATORSHIP, POSSESSION, AND ACCESS
Sec. 153.006. APPOINTMENT OF POSSESSORY CONSERVATOR. (a) If a managing conservator is appointed, the court may appoint one or more possessory conservators.
(b) The court shall specify the rights and duties of a person appointed possessory conservator.
(c) The court shall specify and expressly state in the order the times and conditions for possession of or access to the child, unless a party shows good cause why specific orders would not be in the best interest of the child.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Blackwell v. Humble, 241 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.006 (West 2002).”
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655 (Tex. 1999).
“Laws 717 , codified as amended at Tex. Fam.Code § 153.006. Instead, the Family Code presumed that one parent would have a custodial relationship with the child as its sole managing conservator, while the other parent would be named a possessory conservator, exercising specified…”
Pagliaro v. Jones, 817 A.2d 756 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
“See Tex. Family Code Ann. § 153.006 (Vernon 1996).”
in the Interest of J.J.R.S. & L.J.R.S., Child. (Tex. 2021).
· cites it 8× “B Mother argues that Texas Family Code section 153.006(c) must have intended to permit courts to issue less specific orders, if specificity is not in the child’s best interest, but that less specificity does not mean no specificity.”
Fowler v. Jones, 949 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. App. 1997).
“See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.006 (West 1996).”
In Re Aps, 54 S.W.3d 493 (Tex. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 153.006(c) (Vernon 1996).”
Tex. Fam. Code § 153.006(a): 4 cases
Tex. Fam. Code § 153.006(c): 16 cases
in the Interest of J.J.R.S. & L.J.R.S., Child. (Tex. 2021).
“B Mother argues that Texas Family Code section 153.006(c) must have intended to permit courts to issue less specific orders, if specificity is not in the child’s best interest, but that less specificity does not mean no specificity.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.