Judge issues temporary custody order; father named temporary primary conservator, mother given expanded over‑100‑mile possession

A judge in the 279th District Court on a temporary hearing ordered that Austin Miller be named the temporary primary joint managing conservator of his daughter, Alice, and that the child’s mother, Julia (identified in the hearing as miss Bouchon), remain a joint managing conservator with an expanded standard possession order for travel over 100 miles.

The judge opened the hearing by noting, “This is a temporary hearing, so this is nothing, you know, long term,” and said the court would avoid moving the child back and forth during the summer. The judge stated the court’s orders aloud: “Dad will be the, temporary primary joint managing conservator. Mom will be the joint managing conservator with expanded standard possession order over a 100 miles.”

The orders issued at the hearing also: temporarily stopped Austin Miller’s child‑support payments; did not set a child‑support obligation for Julia at this time; left the child’s health coverage unchanged (the father said Alice is covered by state medical in Washington); set a scheduling hearing for August at 8:30 a.m.; and directed the parties to mediate before trial. The judge encouraged the parents to work out travel plans for returning Alice to Washington before school and granted the mother expanded summer access consistent with an over‑100‑mile standard possession schedule.

During testimony, Austin Miller, who said the child had lived with him for about nine months, described concerns about the mother’s stability earlier in the case and raised specific safety concerns about the mother’s husband. Miller testified that he knew the husband had prior charges and that one involved an indecency/obscenity allegation that occurred in a Walmart parking lot; the mother, Julia, said the husband completed his court process and is on probation. Julia said she moved to Starr County and has since established a permanent residence there and that she believes her husband is not a threat to the child.

The judge expressed concern about leaving the child alone with the mother’s husband and told the mother she did not want the husband alone with the child without more information. The judge also urged the parents to cooperate on FaceTime and visitation and instructed them to return to court in August so the court could set a final hearing date if needed.

No formal vote count or roll call was required; the orders were conveyed verbally by the presiding judge and recorded on the transcript. The court characterized the rulings as temporary and said they would be revisited at the August scheduling hearing.

Ending: The judge said the parties must attempt mediation before trial and scheduled the parties to return in August for further proceedings and possible setting of a final hearing. The court clerk will circulate a written order for approval and signature.