# Zeifman v. Michels

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · August 30, 2006 · 212 S.W.3d 582

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734647

## Case

- **Full name:** Clifford ZEIFMAN, Appellant, v. Sheryl Diane MICHELS, Appellee
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** August 30, 2006
- **Citations:** 212 S.W.3d 582; 2006 WL 2190525
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pemberton
- **Judges:** Law, Patterson, Pemberton
- **Cited by:** 348 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734647

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that conservatorship decisions are within discretion of trial court and will not be disturbed unless “clear abuse of discretion” is shown and describing abuse of discretion standard of review
- explaining that threshold inquiry in conservatorship modification action is whether there has been material and substantial change in circumstances since date of rendition of order
- explaining that conservatorship determinations “are subject to review only for 7 abuse of discretion”
- stating that “abuse of discretion does not occur as long as some evidence of a substantive and probative character exists to support the trial court’s decision”
- explaining that when conducting legal sufficiency review, appellate court disregards evidence contrary to finding unless reasonable factfinder could not

## Opinion text

BOB PEMBERTON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment only. I cannot agree with the majority that, on this record, there is legally insufficient evidence of material and substantial change in circumstances of the child. However, the record, and our scope of review in the absence of the fact findings Zeifman requested, compel me to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the decree to give Michels sole power to make A.A.’s educational decisions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9734647. Public record. Not legal advice.