Sec. 156.102. MODIFICATION OF EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DETERMINE PRIMARY RESIDENCE OF CHILD WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ORDER. (a) If a suit seeking to modify the designation of the person having the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of a child is filed not later than one year after the earlier of the date of the rendition of the order or the date of the signing of a mediated or collaborative law settlement agreement on which the order is based, the person filing the suit shall execute and attach an affidavit as provided by Subsection (b).
(b) The affidavit must contain, along with supporting facts, at least one of the following allegations:
(1) that the child's present environment may endanger the child's physical health or significantly impair the child's emotional development;
(2) that the person who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child is the person seeking or consenting to the modification and the modification is in the best interest of the child; or
(3) that the person who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child has voluntarily relinquished the primary care and possession of the child for at least six months and the modification is in the best interest of the child.
(c) The court shall deny the relief sought and refuse to schedule a hearing for modification under this section unless the court determines, on the basis of the affidavit, that facts adequate to support an allegation listed in Subsection (b) are stated in the affidavit. If the court determines that the facts stated are adequate to support an allegation, the court shall set a time and place for the hearing.
(d) Subsection (b)(3) does not apply to a person who has the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child and who has temporarily relinquished the primary care and possession of the child to another person during the conservator's military deployment, military mobilization, or temporary military duty, as those terms are defined by Section 153.701.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1289, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1036, Sec. 20, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 727 (S.B. 279), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1113 (H.B. 1012), Sec. 29, eff. September 1, 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
68
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case:
In the Interest of J.R.P., 526 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2017).
In the Interest of J.R.P., 526 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102. Here, the governing conservatorship order was entered in December 2013, granting A.”
Keith v. Keith, 221 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “[2] Unlike a suit for modification of the exclusive right to determine the primary residence of a child within a year of the rendition of the order, see TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 156.102, a suit for modification of an order establishing possession brought, like Sharon's, under…”
In re McPeak, 525 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.102 (a). Subsection (b) requires that the affidavit contain, along with supporting facts, at least one of three allegations.”
In the Interest of A.D., 474 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Som-mer moved to dismiss on the ground that Cayne failed to comply with Texas. Family Code section 156.102, which provides: (a) If a suit seeking to modify the designation of the person having the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of a child is-" filed not later…”
In Re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Laws 3108 (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.102 (Vernon 2002)).”
in the Interest of C.S., a Child, 264 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Appellees filed a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Affidavits Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 156.102” on August 6, 2007.”
Agraz v. Carnley, 143 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App. 2004).
“Laws 2987 , 2993 (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.102(a) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102(a) — 25 cases
In the Interest of J.R.P., 526 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2017).
“Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102. Here, the governing conservatorship order was entered in December 2013, granting A.”
Agraz v. Carnley, 143 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App. 2004).
“Laws 2987 , 2993 (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.102(a) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App. 2003).
“Laws 3108 (current version at Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 156.102 (Vernon 2002)).”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102(b) — 8 cases
In re McPeak, 525 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. App. 2017).
“” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 156.102 (a). Subsection (b) requires that the affidavit contain, along with supporting facts, at least one of three allegations.”
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102(b)(1) — 5 cases
In the Interest of J.R.P., 526 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2017).
“Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102. Here, the governing conservatorship order was entered in December 2013, granting A.”
In the Interest of A.D., 474 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App. 2014).
“Som-mer moved to dismiss on the ground that Cayne failed to comply with Texas. Family Code section 156.102, which provides: (a) If a suit seeking to modify the designation of the person having the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of a child is-" filed not later…”
in the Interest of C.S., a Child, 264 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. 2008).
“Appellees filed a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Affidavits Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 156.102” on August 6, 2007.”
In Re Cs, 264 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. 2008).
— Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102(c) — 16 cases
In the Interest of J.R.P., 526 S.W.3d 770 (Tex. App. 2017).
“Tex. Fam. Code § 156.102. Here, the governing conservatorship order was entered in December 2013, granting A.”
in the Interest of C.S., a Child, 264 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. 2008).
“Appellees filed a “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Affidavits Pursuant to Texas Family Code § 156.102” on August 6, 2007.”
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.