A modification can only be granted if the change of circumstances proven relates directly to the modification requested. In re A.T.E., No. 01-19-00481-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 9/29/2020, no pet.)(mem. op.) involved a father who sought to modify a 2012 order that gave him supervised visitation because of his drinking. At the modification trial, the father showed that the child was older, both parents had remarried, he lived with a friend and he worked half the time in Saudi Arabia where alcohol was not allowed. The court of appeals held that the father had not met his burden to show that the modifications in visitation he wanted were related to the changes of circumstances since 2012.

Click here to read the entire case.

These quotes from this case explain the holding and remind us which changes in circumstances are not enough to justify modification:

To prove that a material and substantial change in circumstances has occurred, “the evidence must show the conditions that existed at the time of the prior order as compared to the conditions that existed at the time of the hearing on the motion to modify.”

This Court has held that the substantial and material change that is relied on as the basis for modification must be material to the modification sought.

Identifying a change in one circumstance to seek a modification of another aspect of the custody arrangement improperly avoids the Legislature’s requirement that a substantial and material change be established to open the custody terms to modification. The requested modification must be “somehow connected to the changed circumstances” to permit reexamination of the custody terms. (stating, by example, that “a remarriage may require some changes but does not mean that the trial court may now modify other provisions in the original divorce decree unrelated to the remarriage”). Generally, a child’s aging is a contemplated event that will not constitute a substantial and material change. New marriages may qualify if they are shown to affect the parent-child relationship, but the mere fact of remarriage is not sufficient. Lee did not demonstrate how his or Samantha’s new marriages, even coupled with Anna’s older age, supported allowing Lee unsupervised, overnight visits, including international travel. Lee testified that he wanted a fuller relationship with Anna, with lengthier visits and opportunities to travel together. But a parent’s desire for a fuller relationship with a child is not a substantial and material change to warrant modification to remove a requirement that visits be supervised.