Opinion issued June 20, 2019 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00463-CV ——————————— SHERRY ANTOINETTE SMITH, Appellant V. MOHAMMAD HAMID PAYANDEH, Appellee On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 17-FD-2098 MEMORANDUM OPINION Sherry Antoinette Smith, acting pro se, appeals the divorce decree dissolving the marriage between her and Mohammad Hamid Payandeh. In two issues, Smith contends the trial court abused its discretion in granting Payandeh the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the parties’ child, Z.K.P., and she asserts that the trial court misinterpreted the effect of her invocation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during trial.1 We affirm. Background Smith and Payandeh were married in September 2014, and Z.K.P. was born on September 9, 2015. Smith also has four children from prior relationships, who lived with the couple. Payandeh and Smith separated in January 2017 and began living in separate residences. Z.K.P. lived with Payandeh but would go to Smith’s home for visitation. Payandeh would later testify that, on July 31, 2017, he went to Smith’s home to pick up Z.K.P. from a visit. One of Smith’s other children opened the door and let Payandeh in the apartment. Payandeh then saw that Smith was smoking “kush,” an illegal substance. Smith filed a petition for divorce in early August 2017. She requested to be named Z.K.P.’s sole managing conservator and the conservator with the right to designate Z.K.P.’s primary residence. She requested that Payandeh’s possession of 1 In her opening brief, Smith also asserts that “the calculation of child support [she was ordered to pay in the decree] was not made within the parameters provided by the child support guidelines.” She provided no further briefing regarding the assertion. In her reply brief, Smith writes that she “accepts the child support guidelines determination as it conforms with the monthly child support calculator at the Attorney General’s website.” Thus, Smith is not pursuing a challenge to the child-support award. 2 Z.K.P. be limited because she believed that he would attempt to take Z.K.P. out of the country. Payandeh filed a counterpetition, requesting “full custody” of Z.K.P. until the divorce was finalized. The trial court signed temporary orders in September 2017 in which Payandeh and Smith were appointed Z.K.P.’s joint managing conservators. However, Smith was not permitted to have overnight possession of Z.K.P. She was given possession odd-week Fridays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursdays. Payandeh had possession of Z.K.P. at all other times. The trial court conducted a bench trial in March 2018 with the parties presenting evidence relating to issues of conservatorship, possession, and child support. Payandeh requested that he be named the managing conservator who would establish Z.K.P.’s primary residence, and he requested that Smith’s possession of Z.K.P. be limited to daytime visits as they had been under the temporary orders. Payandeh testified that he is originally from Iran and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals