## Facts

- A Texas district court entered a divorce decree addressing child support for three minor children and awarding the mother attorney’s fees.
- The decree ordered child support of $500 per month per child, with scheduled increases: to $600 per month per child when the oldest child turned 18, and later to $800 per month for the youngest child until majority.
- The father was an attorney with reported 1984 income of about $62,000, with testimony that his income was increasing as his practice grew.
- The record contained limited evidence of future child-related expenses; the specific projected expense was orthodontic/dental work for one child estimated at about $3,000.
- The father appealed, challenging (1) the initial support amount, (2) the decree’s automatic future increases, and (3) the unconditional award of attorney’s fees to the mother.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in setting initial child support at $500 per month per child.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering automatic, scheduled future increases in child support without sufficient evidence of future needs or changed circumstances.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the mother attorney’s fees unconditionally.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the initial child support award of $500 per month per child.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by ordering automatic future increases not supported by evidence of future needs or circumstances, and reformed the decree to delete the automatic increase provisions.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s-fee award, concluding it was permissible under the trial court’s discretion in divorce-related property division and/or as costs in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
- As reformed, the judgment was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Child support determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and must be supported by evidence of the children’s needs and the obligor’s ability to pay.
- An initial child support award within guideline ranges may be upheld when supported by evidence of the obligor’s income and the children’s needs.
- Automatic “escalation” provisions that increase child support at future dates are improper absent specific evidence supporting the timing and amount of the increases; anticipated changes are generally addressed through later modification proceedings.
- Attorney’s fees in divorce and parent-child-related litigation may be awarded within the trial court’s discretion, including as part of an equitable property division and/or as statutorily authorized costs, and are upheld absent an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the initial child support and attorney’s-fee award but removed the decree’s scheduled child-support increases because the record lacked sufficient evidence to justify predetermined future increases without later judicial review.


Abrams v. Abrams, 713 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986)