Originally published by mkhtx.
Yesterday the First District Court of Appeals issued its memorandum opinion in Camero v. Camero, No. 01-15-00860-CV, affirming the trial court’s judgment.
Samantha and Fernando were married in 2010 and had two children during the marriage. Samantha filed a pro se petition for divorce in March 2014 and then, with the help of a legal aid service, an amended petition. She also obtained a protective order against Fernando. The case was tried to the bench on July 29, 2015. Samantha was present and testified but Fernando did not attend because he was incarcerated, having been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Samantha alleged that she and Fernando had been separated in January 2014 when Fernando kidnapped her and the two children and held them against their will for over a month. He assaulted her daily and threatened to kill her and the children. She managed to escape and Fernando was arrested in February 2014 and later convicted. At trial she testified that Fernando had an extensive substance abuse problem and a history of family violence. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court appointed Samantha SMC and Fernando PC with no visitation.
Fernando filed a pro se appeal alleging two issues: 1) the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered that he not have access or visitation with his children; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion when it did not permit him as an inmate to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone or other means.
I’m not even going to address Fernando’s first issue. As to the second, the record shows that even though he had notice of the trial date, before trial Fernando failed to request to appear by alternative means.
The Court of Appeals overruled both issues and affirmed the trial court.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2jW3L8W
via Abogado Aly Website