Christine Hanson v. Johny Jideofor Nwachukwu

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-25-00281-CV

Christine Hanson, Appellant

v.

Johny Jideofor Nwachukwu, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 21-2178-FC4, THE HONORABLE JOHN B. MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Christine Hanson appeals the trial court’s final order appointing Hanson and

Johny Jideofor Nwachukwu as joint managing conservators of their daughter. In one issue,

Hanson argues that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing her and Nwachukwu as

joint managing conservators after finding that Nwachukwu committed family violence against

Hanson. See Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(b) (providing that court may not appoint joint managing

conservators if credible evidence is presented of history or pattern of physical abuse by one

parent directed against other parent). We will reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

In November 2023, Hanson filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship

seeking to be appointed sole managing conservator of her and Nwachukwu’s three-year-old

daughter. Hanson alleged that Nwachukwu had a history or pattern of committing family
violence against her in the previous two-year period. Nwachukwu filed a counter-petition

alleging that it was in their daughter’s best interest that he and Hanson be appointed as her joint

managing conservators. In November 2024, the court conducted a bench trial during which it

heard testimony from two witnesses—Hanson and Nwachukwu. Hanson testified that she was

assaulted by Nwachukwu in June 2021 in Harris County after which she stated she drove to

Williamson County because she was “done with the continuous abuse.” Hanson described an

incident in January 2023 during which Nwachukwu came to her home in Williamson County,

“broke through the master bedroom door,” hit her in the face twice, and left the residence.

Hanson testified that she called the police, and Nwachukwu “ended up getting arrested” and

charged with family violence. When asked whether Nwachukwu had “been physical” with her

before the January 2023 incident, Hanson answered, “countless amount of times, yes,” and that

she “lost count, honestly” of the number of times he had caused physical injury to her. Hanson

described another incident in August 2022 that left “bruising on [her] legs” and “another black

eye and knot on [her] forehead.” Hanson’s testimony described other incidents as well,

including one when Nwachukwu “tickled” her until she urinated on herself and left scratches on

her stomach.

Nwachukwu admitted that he had “pushed” Hanson and caused a scratch on her

eye. When Nwachukwu was shown photographs of injuries to Hanson and asked if he denied

causing them, Nwachukwu stated, “I mean, I’m not denying that,” and agreed that things “got

out of hand.” But Nwachukwu denied that his actions constituted family violence because he

“got the case dismissed.” Regarding the tickling incident, Nwachukwu agreed that Hanson “was

crying” but that he “tickled her in a playful manner, so it wasn’t purposefully.”

At the conclusion of the bench trial, the court stated:

2
Okay. I believe that he was violent with her. I believe that he was proactive in
addressing that issue, and that he went, and he got counseling and help for it, and
that’s 24 classes he took over a year, at an hour and a half, which is no joke. I am
going to order a joint managing conservatorship. And I am making a finding of
domestic violence. This is to reaffirm that she was a victim of domestic violence.
A finding of domestic violence rebuts the presumption [that] a joint
conservatorship is in the child’s best interest. I believe the presumption has been
rebutted. However, based upon some of his actions in regards to his visitation, his
possession and access, the difficulties he has had in regards to coordinating his
visitation, I believe it is in the child’s best interest to order a joint managing
conservatorship [].

Thereafter, the court signed an order appointing Hanson and Nwachukwu as joint managing

conservators of their daughter. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The primary concern in determining conservatorship and possession of and access

to the child is the best interest of the child. Tex. Fam. Code. § 153.002; In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d

338, 342 (Tex. 2000). Generally, Texas encourages “co-parenting.” C.C. v. L.C., No. 02-18-

00425-CV, 2019 WL 2865294, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(noting that “the [F]amily [C]ode embodies the policy of co-parenting with its rebuttable

presumption that joint managing conservatorship is in the best interest of the child.”). It is the

public policy of this state to “assure that children will have frequent and continuing contact with

parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child” and to “encourage

parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their children after the parents have separated

or dissolved their marriage.” Tex. Fam. Code § 153.001(a)(1), (3). Thus, there is “a rebuttable

presumption that the appointment of the parents of a child as joint managing conservators is in

the best interest of the child.” Id. § 153.131(b). But this presumption is removed—and the trial

court is prohibited from appointing the parents as joint managing conservators—if the trial court

3
makes “[a] finding of a history of family violence involving the parents of a child.” Id.

§§ 153.004, .131(b); see id. § 153.005(c)(1) (stating that, in appointing sole or joint managing

conservator, the trial court shall consider whether the “party engaged in a history or pattern of

family violence”). 1 Because a family-violence finding reflects that the evidence of physical

abuse is credible, Baker v. Baker, 469 S.W.3d 269, 273 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015,

no pet.), it not only bars the trial court from appointing the parents as joint managing

conservators but also creates a rebuttable presumption that (1) appointment of the abusive parent

as sole managing conservator is not in the child’s best interest and (2) unsupervised visitation

with the abusive parent is not in the child’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(b), (e).

The prohibition on appointing the parents as joint managing conservators when the trial court

makes a finding of family violence involving them seems “to be based on the assumption that

two people cannot be expected to cooperate to the extent necessary to co-parent when one of the

parents has abused the other parent or a child.” C.C., 2019 WL 2865294, at *16 (discussing

Subsection 153.131(b) along with related provision in Subsection 154.004(b) that prohibits joint

managing conservatorship when trial court makes family-violence finding).

The parties here do not dispute that the trial court made a finding of family

violence, and the evidence presented at trial supports that finding. 2 Because of this finding, the

1 Although “family violence” is not defined in Section 153.131, related provisions of the
Texas Family Code use the definition provided in Section 71.004, which defines “family
violence” to include, as relevant here, “an act by a member of a family or household against
another member of the family or household that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily
injury, [or] assault” or “is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent
physical harm, bodily injury, [or] assault,” with “defensive measures to protect oneself
excluded.” Tex. Fam. Code § 71.004(1).
2 In fact, after trial, Nwachukwu filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law
that included a proposed finding that “Nwachukwu has a history or pattern of committing family
4
Texas Family Code prohibited the trial court from appointing Hanson and Nwachukwu as their

daughter’s joint managing conservators.

Conservatorship determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re

J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d 211, 218 (Tex. 2021); Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex.

1982). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably, meaning that it

acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. J.J.R.S., 627 S.W.3d at 218. Here, the

trial court’s appointment of Hanson and Nwachukwu as joint managing conservators was in

direct contravention of the provision of the Texas Family Code and, consequently, constituted an

abuse of discretion. We sustain Hanson’s sole appellate issue.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court abused its discretion in appointing Hanson and

Nwachukwu as joint managing conservators, we reverse the trial court’s conservatorship

determinations and remand the case for further proceedings.

__________________________________________
Karin Crump, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: April 2, 2026

violence during the two years preceding the date of the filing of the suit or during the pendency
of the suit.”
5