The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
May Court Order Parent Not to Rent Out Children's Bedrooms When the Children Aren't In His Custody?
In Gardner v. McKenney, McKenney (the mother) and Gardner (the father) had joint custody, but mother sought to be appointed the primary custodian, and to "render an order 'preclud[ing] [Gardner] from renting out the children's bedrooms at their primary residences as short term rentals.'" The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed that yesterday, in an opinion by Justice Thomas Baker, joined by Justices Edward Smith and Rosa Lopez Theofanis:
Mindful that the trial judge is "best able to observe and assess the witnesses' demeanor and credibility" and sense the "forces, powers, and influences" that may not be apparent from merely reading the record on appeal, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which the trial court could exercise its discretion, and that the court's exercise of discretion in rendering the room-rental provision of the order was reasonable…
McKenney testified that she believed the issue of strangers staying in K.L.G.'s bedroom and sleeping in her bed when she was not there was important to the teenager, who had noticed that her things had been rifled through when she was gone. McKenney explained that the children's closets and cabinets had no locks and that she was concerned for the physical and emotional well-being of her children based on the risks associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the possibility that strangers might leave cameras in the bedrooms or take things. There was considerable evidence about K.L.G.'s ongoing mental and emotional issues, for which she was currently undergoing partial hospitalization and about which the parties did not always agree on the best course of treatment.
Gardner confirmed that he had rented out the children's rooms for nearly 100 days in a single year—the same year that encompassed K.L.G.'s suicide attempt and many behavioral concerns as well as estrangement between K.L.G. and Gardner. While Gardner testified that the room rentals did not "bother" K.L.G., that the children know they are "welcome" to lock anything up in his closet that they do not want left out when he rents out their rooms, and that the children enjoy the "extra money" he gives them for renting out their rooms, the trial court could have found such testimony not credible or outweighed by the teenagers' needs for stability in each of their two homes, to include not having to remember to lock things up each time they transfer to their mother's home, especially considering K.L.G.'s significant and ongoing emotional and mental issues. The trial court also could have reasonably inferred that the parent-child relationship and the children's awareness of the parties' custody disputes constrained the children from telling their father how they felt about having their rooms rented out.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Or the trial court could have continued it's long misandrist history of punishing fathers for being fathers in divorces largely sought by their exes.
I’m sorry— is this a complaint about this particular judge?
Not likely. It's mostly a reflection of this blog's target audience.
This standard of near-mindless deference to the trial court's decision seems unworkable to me. The trial judge may well be correct in those findings but it should take more than "he said so" to take away a citizen's right to do what they like with their own property.
I think there’s more to be said for the trial court’s decision than that. We are dealing with a teenager. It could be argued that the room is not entirely her father’s property,. It could be argued it is in some sense her property. Yes it is legally her father’s, but when dealing with things like a child’s room, strict legal rules and logic aren’t necessarily the whole story. It could be argued a person who can’t offer a teenage girl a private room where strange men aren’t rifling through her drawers and sniffing her underwear whenever she’s away isn’t as good a parent as a person who can.
Remember that Sopranos episode where Pauli “Walnuts” Gualtieri goes rifling through Adriana’s drawers and sniffing through her underwear, and Tony was OK with it? Going strictly by the rules, Tony said that until she’s married, her underwear is up for grabs, so fair game.
Yes, strictly by the legal rules of property. her underwear like her room is probably legally her father’s. But it’s at least understandable, there’s at least an arguable case to be made, why a judge might take a different attitude to this sort of thing than Tony Soprano, might not follow the legal rules of property so strictly on something like this, and might not be so OK with it.
Again, the trial judge may well be correct - but we shouldn't have to be speculating about hypotheticals the way you do above. In a perfect world, the appeals court would have sent this back to the trial court for a full and detailed explanation of actual findings and evidence supporting the specific decision. It should all be in the record. When the facts and reasoning are not in the record, trial court assertions should get no deference.
dealing with family dynamics in a divorce situation, probably not a good idea to rent out the childs bedroom.
I will note that judges in family courts have much more discretion than in a typical civil or criminal court in that there is much less that is appealable to the appeals court.
"Remember that Sopranos episode"
Why? Real life is not fiction. Do you think any real father would be ok with a grown man sniffing his daughter's underwear?
I now worry about you.
There are zillions of real fathers in this world. Most are going to be protective of their daughters. But we know some are ok with all sorts of indignities falling on their children, including daughters.
This real father is ok with a person renting the room containing her personal belongings. And, based on undisputed the testimony, he seems ok with the idea that the renter might rifle through her stuff. Based on undisputed testimony, his conversation with his daughter includes telling her "fuck you" while flipping her the bird. Based on undisputed testimony, in the past, the daughter had refused to visit him. It's reasonable to infer this father is dismissive of her feelings and may very well think she should just learn to deal with someone rifling through her drawers and sniffing her underwear.
Most American fathers would not think that's right. But there is reason to suspect this one might be like that. Yes, the Sopranos is fiction. But that doesn't mean people with the values held by the Sopranos don't exist.
I guess I should have said any decent father. I stand corrected.
I wouldn’t do it either, but maybe this dad needs the money. Wonder how much alimony and child support are costing him…..
Clean underwear ought not have an odor, other than possibly the detergent it was washed in. And if it isn't clean underwear, then there is a larger issue....
The trial court said the daughter had complained about the strangers the father had rented her room to rifling through her drawers. And not only did the father allow it to continue in this case, he appealed the trial court’s ruling that he couldn’t do it!
What do you think this case is about? What do you think the daughter was worried about? This is a real life case. It’s not fiction.
That prospect doesn’t seem to bother Texas father and clueless litigant Tracen Gardner much.
Lots of wrong things can be argued, I suppose.
So, case closed.
This is a mistaken understanding of this decision, and the legal analysis generally. It has nothing to do with property rights. This is about custody. Courts can order divorced parents to do (or forbear from doing) lots of things that they're legally entitled to do, if those people want to retain custodial rights. If the father said, "No, I want to keep renting out the room," the judge's order will be, "Fine, then no
soupkids for you."You didn’t read my comment, did you?
Read it again.
(Hint: “It could be argued a person who can’t offer a teenage daughter a private room…isn’t as good a parent…” is an allusion to the best interest of the child standard for child custody decisions.)
So near-mindless deference to the appellate court is better? If you take it to court, SOMEONE has to decide at some point. I'd rather it be the trial court who is actually looking at and listening to witnesses, with the appellate court just reviewing for legal errors.
I think the principle is that the probability of an appelate court judge being nutso / superbiasedo, is marginally less than the probability of a single trial court judge being nutso / superbiasedo.
Simply because of the extra hurdles that the appelate court judge has had to leap over to get where he/she/it is, and the extra years of trying to conceal their megalomania.
By no means a slam dunk, of course.
You handle a nutso/biased judge by identifying the legal errors on appeal. If the complaint is just "he should've believed me because I'm SUPER credible," that's not a legal complaint. Somebody's got to decide credibility, and the person who actually saw the testimony is the most logical person for that. I'm an appellate lawyer and read transcripts all the time -- people come across completely differently in cold writing than when you have them in front of you.
What if he were to sell the house?
And why do I not suspect that the lost rental income isn't being deducted from his child support obligations....
I-ANAL but this one's easy
"No"
"There was considerable evidence about K.L.G.'s ongoing mental and emotional issues"
Very sad. Any indication of where those problems came from?
Well, they apparently continued after Mom got sole custody...
If mom has custody, why doesn't mom have to house them?
Mom has "primary custody." So Dad has some kind of custody and the kids live with him sometimes.
And yet the issues are there when primarily with her. Shocking.
Yeah, almost like issues don't disappear overnight. Especially when she still has recurrent contact with Dad and having her personal space not respected.
I hope these children recognize that they can overcome the obstacles associated with having bickering parents and a shambling asshole for a father. They have a few years remaining before they can free themselves of these problems. Those years will be important, and will seem to last a long time, but from the perspective of a lifetime they should be considered a manageable problem.
When you graduate from high school, Gardner children, leave and never look back! If you pursue education, opportunity, modernity and happiness elsewhere -- on a strong, reason-based, mainstream campus and/or in a modern, successful, educated community -- you can build a good life. That may seem difficult to believe today, but it is unquestionably true. If anyone tells you to stay put or that you can't overcome the bad hand you have been dealt, that person is either a dope, trying to manipulate you for selfish reasons, or both.
It would be understandable to fear that your current circumstances will afflict you forever, but that fear is unnecessary. I had those fears, long ago. If you leave as soon as you can, however, people will know about your childhood circumstances only if you tell them. Most people -- especially the ones who count -- will not fault you for having lousy parents but instead will credit you for how many rungs of life's ladder you have climbed. If you get a solid education, focus on being a good person, and develop some skills (something you like to do, ideally), you will find yourself thinking less and less about your experiences as a teenager and enjoying more and more of life. You can reach a point at which you can not only take care of yourself but also could help others.
There isn't much beyond barbecue in Lockhart, Texas -- try to stock up at the Kreuz Market before you leave -- but some great things have come out of Lockhart. You can be one of them.
Please try to focus on the future, on building a foundation for a good life, and on making the best of a bad situation until you can get past it. I wish you well, and will be rooting for you. Good luck!
Groom much??
What the fuck is wrong with you?
And what are right-wing law professors who cultivate an audience of Frank Drackmans thinking? Not that better Americans will respect them, I hope.
It's not THE Texas Court of Appeals, it's one of many (14) intermediate appellate courts. Middle ground between the trial court and the Supreme Court/Court of Criminal Appeals high court.
My first thought is why doesn't this report include the number of days the father actually has custody?
to avoid rubbing the children's noses in it?
Based on this language I reasonably infer that the trial court gave precisely zero indication that it had in fact inferred what the appellate court said it "could have" inferred.
Sure it did. It ruled in favor of the mother.
I'm aware that there could be all kinds of rabble rabble rabble over property rights and such, but you can't do this. If you're running a boarding house the base level of security isn't there.
If you were running an orphanage I would still protest a person doing this but to your own kids who kind of depend on you?
Its not logical to take this view but... eww gross.
The court recognized this point and imposed some adult supervision on the father.
If the daughter is lucky, this will bother the father to that point at which he no longer wants the daughter to sleep at his house.
This father is one clinger who learned just how far better Americans will permit him to carry on.