EVEN THE PARENT WHO HAD BEEN THE PRIMARY CARETAKER OF THE CHILDREN CAN LOSE THAT POSITION BY ENGAGING IN PARENTAL ALIENATION
At the conclusion of trial, the trial judge emphasized that [Mother] had persisted and would likely continue to persist in preventing the children from having any chance at a relationship with their father. The judge further expressed doubt as to whether, if she were given the right to determine the children's primary residence, [Mother] would ever allow the children to have a good relationship with [Father]. Such persistent alienation of the other parent can be a guiding consideration in making possession and access determinations. See, e.g., In re J.W.H., No. 14–09–00143–CV, 2010 WL 1541679, at *6–7 (Tex.App.–Houston [14th Dist.] April 20, 2010, no pet.) (mem.op.) (affirming trial court's modification order changing which parent had primary custody based in part on evidence parent who originally had primary possession had repeatedly attempted to interfere with other parent's periods of possession); In re Marriage of Chandler, 914 S.W.2d 252, 254 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1996, no writ) (affirming order divesting parent of managing conservatorship due in part to interference with other parent's relationship with child).
Indulging every reasonable inference that would support the trial court's finding, we conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to support its decision. The court did not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles by naming [Father] the conservator with the right to determine the children's primary residence; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d at 616.
Accordingly, we overrule [Mother]'s sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Allen v. Allen, No. 14-14-00426-CV, 2015 WL 5025844, at *4 (Tex. App. Aug. 25, 2015)