Tex. Fam. Code Sec. 153.001. Public Policy.
(a) The public policy of this state is to:
(1) 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;
(2) provide a safe, stable, and nonviolent environment for the child; and
(3) encourage parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage.
When determining issues related to conservatorship or possession of and access to the child, the best interest of the child is the primary consideration. Id. at § 153.002
Where both parents are appointed as the child's managing conservators, the trial court specifies the rights and duties that are to be exercised by each parent. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 153.071. While the guidelines in the standard possession order are intended to guide courts as to the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator, there is a rebuttable presumption that the standard possession order provides the reasonable minimum possession of a child for a parent named as a joint managing conservator and that the order is in the child's best interest. Id. at §§ 153.251(a), 153.252(1), (2).
If there is sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption, however, the trial court may then deviate from the standard possession order. Id. at § 153.256; see also Ohendalski v. Ohendalski, 203 S.W.3d 910, 915 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2006, no pet.)(holding no abuse of discretion to deviate from standard possession order based on finding of family violence); Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2004, no pet.); In re Walters, 39 S.W.3d 280, 283 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2001, no pet.)(affirming trial court's finding that standard possession order was not in child's best interest due to mother's alcoholism, which placed child in potentially harmful situations). When deviating from the standard possession order, the trial court may consider: (1) the age, developmental status, circumstances, needs, and the best interest of the child; (2) the circumstances of the managing conservator and of the parent named as a possessory conservator; and (3) any other relevant factor. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 153.256.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state-- ... OPgP3A34J/Naranjo, meanwhile, said she had never seen or heard Jones on Infowars until Wednesday’s hearing, when Kelly Jones’ legal team started previewing Infowars videos it would like to play for the jury.
The first was a clip from a July 2015 broadcast in which Jones had his son, then 12, on to play the latest of some 15 or 20 videos he had made with the help of members of the Infowars team who, Jones said, had “taken him under their wing” during summer days spent at the South Austin studio between stints at tennis and Christian camps.
“He is undoubtedly cut out for this, and I intend for him to eclipse what I’ve done. He’s a way greater person than I was at 12,” said Jones, turning to his son. “I love you so much, and I didn’t mean to get you up here, sweetheart, and tell people how much I love you, but you’re so handsome, and you’re a good little knight who’s going to grow up, I know, to be a great fighter against the enemy.”
“So far this looks like good stuff,” Wilhite said. Naranjo OK’d it for viewing by the jury.
But Bobby Newman, the attorney for Kelly Jones guiding the court through the Infowars clips, was laying the groundwork for the argument that there is no separation between Alex Jones, father, and Alex Jones, Infowarrior.
“This is the world he has planned for his kids,” said Newman, quoting Alex Jones at a recent hearing insisting that what he says on the air is what he believes.
"Good little white knight"? I guess the jury will have to sort things out...
