## Facts

- Linda D. Glud sued William Glud for divorce, property division, and custody of their two sons; William counterclaimed for similar relief.
- The parties married in December 1968 and had two boys (born in 1969 and 1971).
- The case was tried to the court without a jury.
- The trial court granted a divorce, divided the marital property, appointed Linda managing conservator, ordered child support, granted William substantial visitation, and awarded Linda attorney’s fees.
- Evidence indicated both parents were loving and capable of meeting the children’s needs.
- In announcing custody, the judge stated that “a man would have difficulty raising two boys the way a woman could.”
- The judge interviewed the children in chambers under Texas Family Code § 14.07(c); by agreement, neither parties nor counsel attended.
- The court caused a record of the interview to be made, then ordered it sealed and unavailable to the parties, directing that any appeal receive the transcript only in sealed form.
- William objected that § 14.07(c) required the interview record to be made part of the record in the case and that sealing would impair appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by sealing and withholding the recorded in-chambers child interview rather than making it part of the record as required by Texas Family Code § 14.07(c).
2. Whether the custody award was reversible error where the trial court expressly relied on a generalized belief that a mother is better suited than a father to raise boys.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the child-custody order and remanded for further proceedings on conservatorship.
- The court held the sealing/withholding order violated § 14.07(c)’s requirement that the interview record be made part of the record in the case.
- The court held the custody decision could not stand where it was explicitly based on a sex-based stereotype rather than a case-specific best-interest determination.
- The court left the remainder of the divorce judgment (including property division) undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- When a trial court interviews a child in chambers under Texas Family Code § 14.07(c) and causes a record to be made, the record must be made part of the case record for purposes including meaningful appellate review.
- A trial court may not employ procedures that effectively remove a statutorily required interview transcript from the accessible record and thereby impair a party’s ability to challenge the custody decision on appeal.
- Conservatorship determinations must be based on the children’s best interests and may not rest on categorical gender-based preferences or stereotypes about parenting roles.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed and remanded the managing conservatorship determination because the trial court both violated the statutory requirement governing the interview transcript and relied on an impermissible gender-based assumption in selecting the mother as managing conservator.


Glud v. Glud, 641 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. App.—Waco 1982)