What happens with default orders in Texas child custody cases?

Q: What happens with default orders in Texas child custody cases?

In the Interest of I.N.A.M., a Child: Your presence at trial is mandatory to protect your rights; failing to show up—even if you have a pending jury request—allows the judge to immediately rule against you based solely on the evidence provided by the other side. | In the Interest of P.J.G., A Child: Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; failing to provide a clear, legally-supported roadmap of trial court errors in an appellate brief will result in a waiver of those claims, regardless of their perceived constitutional importance.

This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:

In the Interest of I.N.A.M., a Child

COA08 — January 28, 2026

In this custody case, a Mother lost her right to a jury trial after failing to appear in court on her scheduled trial date. Despite having previously requested a jury, her absence allowed the trial court to dismiss the jury panel and proceed with a bench hearing. Based on the Father's testimony and the Mother's history of non-compliance with court orders, the trial court named the Father sole managing conservator and restricted the Mother to supervised visitation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 220, failing to appear for trial constitutes a waiver of the right to a jury, and the Father's unopposed evidence was sufficient to support the court's 'best interest' determination.

Litigation Takeaway

“Your presence at trial is mandatory to protect your rights; failing to show up—even if you have a pending jury request—allows the judge to immediately rule against you based solely on the evidence provided by the other side.”

In the Interest of P.J.G., A Child

COA13 — January 26, 2026

In this family law case, a father representing himself appealed a court order for child support and custody (SAPCR), claiming he did not consent to the Title IV-D child support system and alleging that federal funding creates a judicial conflict of interest. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(i), which requires a party to provide clear legal arguments supported by relevant authority. The court found that the father's arguments relied on 'sovereign citizen' rhetoric and federal cases that did not support his claims. Because he failed to provide a substantive legal analysis of how the trial court actually erred, the appellate court held that he waived his right to challenge the order and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Litigation Takeaway

“Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys; failing to provide a clear, legally-supported roadmap of trial court errors in an appellate brief will result in a waiver of those claims, regardless of their perceived constitutional importance.”