pjc-family-2024-lib

PJC 217.3

M ODIFICATION OF C ONSERVATORSHIP AND S UPPORT

Answer by writing “With a geographic restriction” or “Without a geographic restriction.” Answer: _______________ If you answered Question 3 “With a geographic restriction,” then answer Question 4. Otherwise, do not answer Question 4. QUESTION 4 What is the geographic area within which the sole managing conservator must designate the primary residence of the child? Answer by writing the geographic area. Answer: _______________ COMMENT Source. The foregoing submission is based on Tex. Fam. Code §156.101. The questions designated Questions 3 and 4 are based on Tex. Fam. Code § 105.002(c). Use only in two-party suits. The instruction and questions in PJC 217.3 are appropriate if only one or both of the two current joint managing conservators seek to become the sole managing conservator. If other parties also seek sole managing con servatorship, see PJC 217.5 (modification of conservatorship—multiple parties seek ing conservatorship). For cases in which a managing conservator has died, see the comment below entitled “Death of conservator.” Date of order or agreement. The earlier of the date of rendition of the order or the date of the signing of a mediated or collaborative law settlement agreement on which the order is based should be substituted for DATE . Rewording for voluntary relinquishment ground. In an appropriate case, item 1 in the instruction in PJC 217.3A should be reworded PARTY A has voluntarily relin quished the primary care and possession of CHILD to NAME for at least six months. In the instruction, PARTY A is the conservator who has the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. Nonparent seeking appointment as conservator. When a nonparent seeks to modify an existing order that names a parent as a managing conservator, the nonparent has the burden to prove that the parent is not a fit parent. See In re C.J.C. , 603 S.W.3d 804, 819–20. (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding). If the existing order appoints a nonparent as a managing conservator, see also In re V.L.K. , 24 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2000); Taylor v. Meek , 276 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1955).

174