Judge names mother sole managing conservator; father given step-up visitation tied to parole compliance

A judge finalized custody of 5-year-old Maya Florentino in a Zoom hearing, naming the mother, Priscilla Patino, as sole managing conservator and the father, Santiago Florentino, as a possessory conservator, and approving a step-up visitation plan that begins with supervised therapeutic visits and moves to standard possession if the father completes the program. The court tied a geographic restriction on the child's residence to the father's parole status and adopted a two-year drug-testing provision.

At the start of the final, the parties announced a mediated agreement. Jerry Morales, counsel for the father, described the step-up visitation plan: the father will complete at least four therapeutic visitation sessions; following those sessions he will have six weeks of Saturday supervised visits for four hours per visit supervised by paternal grandmother Marsha Walker; after that period he will have six consecutive day visits from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., also supervised by Walker; after successful completion of non‑overnight visits the father progresses to a standard possession order.

The court added a geographic restriction and transportation provisions. Judge Baker limited the child's residence to within 100 miles of the Potter County courthouse while the father remains on parole; the judge said the restriction will stay in place even if the father successfully completes parole. The judge ordered that if the mother moves during the step-up process she must transport the child to Amarillo for the father's supervised visitation; once the parents reach a standard possession order, transportation follows the standard pickup/return rule.

The court approved financial provisions announced by counsel: the mother will maintain Medicaid for Maya and the father will reimburse $50 per month for medical costs; child support will be calculated from the father’s reported gross wages ($15/hour, 40 hours per week, $2,600 gross monthly) and counsel will exchange calculations for court approval if there is a dispute.

The court approved a drug-testing agreement for two years allowing either parent to request a drug test no more than once every six months. Under the announced terms, if a parent requests a test and it is negative, the requesting parent pays; if the tested parent is positive, that tested parent pays. Counsel stated that a positive test by the father would revert his visitation to supervised status.

The court confirmed that the grandparents who supervise visits may have access to the child during the father’s possession periods and clarified that the mother's first right of refusal will apply for any period of visitation the father chooses not to exercise for more than 24 hours; the judge explained the first right of refusal does not bar the father from leaving the child with his parents during his own visitation periods.

Judge Baker ordered a permanent injunction that parents not make disparaging remarks about the other parent in the presence of the child or where the child might overhear. With the agreement implemented, the Department’s case was dismissed and court‑appointed attorneys were discharged when the final order is signed and adopted by the referring court.

The court asked counsel to exchange a draft of the agreed order for review and submission to the court. No statutes were cited on the record; the judge emphasized the court’s focus on the child’s best interests and urged the parents to co-parent constructively.