Published by Ben Beveridge | April 12, 2024 | Firm News
Quick answer: The “conservatorship” portions of your order specifies 1) rights you have at all time 2) rights you have when in possession of your child and other rights are that are mor commonly used and litigated.
Updated: November 18, 2025 • Texas Family Law Practice – Brazoria, Harris, and Galveston Counties
Most parents walk out of court with a “final order” but only a fuzzy idea of what their rights and duties actually are.
Texas doesn’t just decide who the child lives with; the court also decides who gets to make which decisions about school, medical care, passports, therapy, and more. Those decision-making powers are called conservatorship rights and duties.
This article explains the major building blocks of a Texas child custody order so you can open your decree, find the “Rights and Duties” section,
and actually understand what it says. I’ll walk through:
If you need help applying this to your specific order, you can always call my office at (281) 407-0961 to schedule a consult, or click here.
In Texas, “legal custody” is referred to as conservatorship (distinguished from “physical custody” which the family code refers to as possession). Conservatorship is simply the bundle of legal rights and duties each parent has regarding their child. It covers things like:
Not all rights are commonly litigated, and the rights listed in TFC 153.073 are typically are not litigated, they are usually allocated evenly to each parent. Texas Family Code § 153.073 gives both parents a core set of rights unless the court specifically limits them. In plain English, these rights usually include the ability to:
These are the “baseline” rights most parents keep regardless of who is primary or who pays support. These are rights that the court must allocate in a court order. If your order takes away or limits some of these, that’s a red flag you should understand and possibly address.
Sec. 153.073. RIGHTS OF PARENT AT ALL TIMES. (a) Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has at all times the right:
(1) to receive information from any other conservator of the child concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child;
(2) to confer with the other parent to the extent possible before making a decision concerning the health, education, and welfare of the child;
(3) of access to medical, dental, psychological, and educational records of the child;
(4) to consult with a physician, dentist, or psychologist of the child;
(5) to consult with school officials concerning the child’s welfare and educational status, including school activities;
(6) to attend school activities, including school lunches, performances, and field trips;
(7) to be designated on the child’s records as a person to be notified in case of an emergency;
(8) to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment during an emergency involving an immediate danger to the health and safety of the child; and
(9) to manage the estate of the child to the extent the estate has been created by the parent or the parent’s family.
(b) The court shall specify in the order the rights that a parent retains at all times.
Below is actual language included in an Agreed Order to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship. The Texas Supreme Court produced advisory language to go into child-custody order and most attorney’s use drafting software that uses the language exactly or approximately. Almost all orders regarding children have very similar language to what is below.
IT IS ORDERED that, at all times, Parent A and Parent B, as a parent joint managing conservators, shall have the following rights:
Texas Family Code § 153.074 covers what each parent can and must do when the child is physically in their care (their “period of possession”).
Typically, every parent who has possession has:
These rights and duties exist even if you’re not the parent with the exclusive right to designate primary residence. In other words, when the child is with you, you’re expected to act as a parent, not a visitor. These rights are almost never litigated and almost every order has this language equally applied to both parents.
Sec. 153.074. RIGHTS AND DUTIES DURING PERIOD OF POSSESSION. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as a conservator of a child has the following rights and duties during the period that the parent has possession of the child:
(1) the duty of care, control, protection, and reasonable discipline of the child;
(2) the duty to support the child, including providing the child with clothing, food, shelter, and medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure;
(3) the right to consent for the child to medical and dental care not involving an invasive procedure; and
(4) the right to direct the moral and religious training of the child.
Below is actual language included in an Agreed Order to Modify the Parent-Child Relationship. The Texas Supreme Court produced advisory language to go into child-custody order and most attorney’s use drafting software that uses the language exactly or approximately. Almost all orders regarding children have very similar language to what is below.
IT IS ORDERED that, during her periods of possession, Parent A, as parent
joint managing conservator, shall have the following rights and duties:
IT IS ORDERED that, during his periods of possession, Parent B, as parent
joint managing conservator, shall have the following rights and duties:
Here we get to the rights and duties and conservatorship types that are commonly litigated. The allocation of these rights are haggled over in negotiations or are the subject of litigation if a resolution can not be reached between the parties. The first consideration when looking at the remaining rights is what type of conservatorship is ordered.
In Texas, the way a court labels the parents’ conservatorship has a direct impact on how rights and duties are handled in the custody order. Generally, parents are either both appointed as joint managing conservators (JMCs) or one parent is appointed as the sole managing conservator (SMC) and the other as a possessory conservator (PC). The starting presumption under Texas Family Code § 153.131 is that it is in a child’s best interest for both parents to be named joint managing conservators, and the court then allocates specific rights and duties between them under provisions such as Texas Family Code § 153.073. When the court instead appoints one parent as sole managing conservator and the other as possessory conservator, the default rule is different: the SMC holds the exclusive bundle of statutory rights unless the court affirmatively limits or reallocates them in the order.
When the Presumption in Favor of JMCs Is Rebutted
While joint managing conservatorship is the default, the court is not required to appoint both parents as JMCs in every case. The presumption can be overcome when there is credible evidence of family violence, abuse, neglect, or serious risk to the child’s physical or emotional well‑being. Texas Family Code § 153.004 directs courts not to appoint parents as joint managing conservators if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by one parent towards the other parent, a spouse, or a child. Likewise, under § 153.131, the court may decline to appoint a parent as a joint managing conservator if that appointment would not be in the child’s best interest because it would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.
A finding that there has been family violence between the parents can also remove the presumption in favor of JMCs. The court must consider, among other things, whether a party has a history or pattern of family violence, child abuse, or child neglect, and whether there has been a final protective order entered against a party. See, for example, Texas Family Code §§ 153.004, 153.005, and 153.131. If those concerns are present, the court may reasonably conclude that joint managing conservatorship is not appropriate and instead appoint an SMC and a PC.
When parents are appointed joint managing conservators, the court does not automatically make every right 50/50.
Instead, the judge goes through these rights and decides how each will be exercised. That brings us to the next key concept.
Key Factors the Court Considers in Deciding JMC vs. SMC
When deciding whether to appoint parents as joint managing conservators, the court must ultimately decide what arrangement is in the child’s best interest. Texas Family Code § 153.134 lists a non‑exclusive set of factors for that analysis, including:
When a parent is appointed as the sole managing conservator, that parent generally receives the full set of statutory rights that would otherwise be allocated between JMCs. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as SMC has the rights and duties described in Subchapter B of Chapter 153 as well as several exclusive rights listed in Texas Family Code § 153.132. Those exclusive rights include, among others, the right to designate the child’s primary residence; the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures; and the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment. Because these rights vest in the SMC by statute, they are typically not litigated between the parties in the same way they are when both parents are JMCs.
Sec. 153.132. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARENT APPOINTED SOLE MANAGING CONSERVATOR. Unless limited by court order, a parent appointed as sole managing conservator of a child has the rights and duties provided by Subchapter B and the following exclusive rights:
(1) the right to designate the primary residence of the child;
(2) the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures;
(3) the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment;
(4) the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the child and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the child;
(5) the right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child;
(6) the right to consent to marriage and to enlistment in the armed forces of the United States;
(7) the right to make decisions concerning the child’s education;
(8) the right to designate the school the child will attend and to enroll the child in the school, subject to any eligibility or admissions requirements;
(9) the right to the services and earnings of the child;
(10) except when a guardian of the child’s estate or a guardian or attorney ad litem has been appointed for the child, the right to act as an agent of the child in relation to the child’s estate if the child’s action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign government; and
(11) the right to:
(A) apply for a passport for the child;
(B) renew the child’s passport; and
(C) maintain possession of the child’s passport.
When both parents are appointed joint managing conservators, the court still has to decide how specific decision-making rights will be exercised. For any important category of decisions (for example, medical, educational, or travel-related rights), Texas courts typically use a handful of familiar structures.
In many Texas custody cases, three decision-making areas drive most of the litigation. Lawyers sometimes call them
“heads, eds, and meds”:
When lawyers talk about “heads,” they’re talking about who gets to make the big-picture decisions about a child’s mental health—therapy, counseling, psychiatric evaluations, and similar services. The parent who holds this “Heads” right may be able to decide:
Because these decisions can shape how a child copes, functions at school, and responds to conflict at home, the practical impact is huge. Texas courts can give one parent the exclusive “Heads” right, require the parents to make these decisions jointly, or allow each parent to act independently during their time, depending on the level of conflict and the child’s needs.
“Meds” refers to decisions about significant, invasive medical procedures—things beyond routine checkups and basic care. Your order might:
Because these decisions can involve real risk and long-term consequences, courts often build in extra safeguards. If your order requires joint agreement but you and the other parent rarely see eye to eye, necessary procedures can be delayed. In that situation, parents sometimes seek a modification that keeps both involved but clearly names a final decision-maker after “good-faith consultation,” so the child doesn’t get stuck in limbo.
Educational decision-making includes things like:
In low-conflict situations, courts often allow parents to exercise educational rights independently (with communication requirements).
Where parents do not communicate well, or one parent has a history of undermining schooling, judges may give one parent exclusive
educational authority or require joint decisions with a specific tie-breaker (often the child’s school counselor or a designated professional).
Some rights don’t get much attention until a specific issue pops up. Your order may address:
Judges have a lot of flexibility here. In international-travel cases or situations involving safety concerns, the court may get very specific
about who holds the passport, how far in advance travel notice must be given, and whether a bond is required.
When you open your order, look for language that says a parent has a right:
Courts can also “split” rights. For example:
Under this model, both parents are joint managing conservators, but a particular decision-making right is assigned exclusively to one parent. The other parent does not share that decision and cannot veto it under the order. This structure is less common where cooperation is realistic, but courts will sometimes use it when there is significant conflict, a documented pattern of poor judgment by one parent in that area, or practical obstacles such as distance or lack of involvement.
Even when one parent holds exclusive authority, the order can still require that parent to consult with the other before acting. That way, the non-deciding parent has an opportunity for input and remains informed, without having formal veto power. Drafting language will usually reflect both the exclusivity of the right and any required “meaningful consultation” before the decision is made.
| What it means: | One parent has the exclusive right to make decisions, and the other parent has no right to make such decisions nor veto such decisions for a given right. |
| Prevalence: | This is commonly used to indicate who designates the primary residence and who receives support. It’s occasionally used regarding passport application/maintenance, psychological, medical and educational decisions. |
| When used: | Persistent conflict, a showing of a history of bad decision making concerning a particular right, demonstrated inability to reach shared decisions, live very far from the child, does not visit the child… |
| Options: | This method of allocating rights commonly has the requirement that the parent with the exclusive right consult with the other parent before making such decisions. This way the other parent can have input before the decision is made and can be informed about decisions that are made, even though they can’t make the decisions. |
Common Drafting Language:
Exclusive right without consultation
[“IT IS ORDERED that [parent], as a parent joint managing conservator, shall have the following rights and duty:…
Exclusive right with consultation
[“IT IS ORDERED that [parent], as a parent joint managing conservator, shall have the following rights and duty:…
[“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, [parent with exclusive right] shall have the following exclusive rights regarding the children, with [parent without right] to be consulted in each matter for cooperative co-parenting:….
In a true joint right, both parents must agree before a given decision is implemented. If they cannot reach agreement, the default under the order is that the decision does not move forward. Because stalemates are possible, orders that use this structure often build in a tie-breaker mechanism to prevent important decisions from being stalled indefinitely.
This approach is common where parents generally can cooperate but have a history of occasional deadlock on major issues. It recognizes that each parent should have substantial input while still acknowledging that there must be a way to resolve disputes. A tie-breaker can be a designated parent (after “good-faith consultation”) or, in some cases, a professional or other identified third party whose recommendation the parents agree to follow. Practically, that person is not a party to the order and retains discretion about whether to participate.
| What it means: | Here, both parents have to make decisions together (jointly) and if both parents don’t agree on a decision that has to be made jointly, then the decision shouldn’t be made. Since there is a potential that the parties won’t agree and then an impasse could occur, there is often a “tie breaker” appointed to prevent such situations. |
| Prevalence: | When allocating “heads, eds and meds”, this is the means of allocating rights that I see as most common. As long as there is not a huge amount of parental conflict this option can work, and it supports/requires both parents to be involved in decisions for their child. It is almost always the option for consenting to marriage or military enlistment. |
| When used: | Parents can often collaborate but stalemates may sometimes occur. |
| Options: | Here, the most common option is to appoint a “tie-breaker” in case the parents can’t come to a decision. It’s important to note that since the tie-breaker is not a party they are not actually ordered to do anything and can simply choose not to be a tie-breaker. There have been cases where the tie-breaker does not want to become involved in parental drama and they simply opt out. |
Common Drafting Language:
[IT IS ORDERED that [parent a] and [parent b], as parent joint managing conservators, shall each have the following rights and duties:
….
With an independent-rights structure, each parent may exercise the right on their own, without needing the other parent’s consent. During their respective periods of possession, either parent can act within the scope of that right. The order may or may not require advance notice, post-decision notice, or some level of consultation, depending on the level of conflict and the child’s needs.
Courts often use this model where parental conflict is relatively low and the main concern is flexibility and practicality. It allows each parent to make routine or time-sensitive decisions when they have the child, without constant delays caused by waiting for the other parent’s agreement. In practice, outside entities (such as schools or providers) may still impose their own internal policies about requiring both parents’ signatures, but the order itself authorizes either conservator to act.
| What it means: | Here, both parents are given the “independent” right to make decisions which means both parties consent is not needed, either party can make and consent to on their own, without the other parent’s agreement or consent (even without the other parent’s knowledge in some cases). It’s important to note here that just because one parent has the independent right to make decisions a treating physician may require both parents consent as part of the treating physician normal policy. |
| Prevalence: | For the heads, eds and meds, this is the means of allocating rights is the second most common. As long as there is not a huge amount of parental conflict this option can work and it supports/requires both parents to be involved in decisions for their child. For the rights to manage the child’s estate and represent the child in legal action and collect earning s of the child, this is the most common application. |
| When used: | Low conflict; both parents need flexibility (e.g., scheduling counseling during their periods of possession) without unilateral major changes. |
| Options: | For the heads, eds and meds, It’s not unusual to see this right coupled with a requirement to consult with the other parent before making decisions so the other parent is informed. |
Common Drafting Language:
[IT IS ORDERED that [parent A] , as a parent joint managing conservator, has the following additional rights with respect to the child:…
| Right | Most Common Allocation | 2nd Most Common Allocation | Least Common Allocation |
| (1) the right to designate the primary residence of the child; | Exclusive | ||
| (2) the right to consent to medical, dental, and surgical treatment involving invasive procedures; | Joint | Independent | Exclusive |
| (3) the right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment; | Joint | Independent | Exclusive |
| (4) the right to receive and give receipt for periodic payments for the support of the child and to hold or disburse these funds for the benefit of the child; | Exclusive | ||
| (5) the right to represent the child in legal action and to make other decisions of substantial legal significance concerning the child; | Independent | ||
| (6) the right to consent to marriage and to enlistment in the armed forces of the United States; | Joint | ||
| (7) the right to make decisions concerning the child’s education;
|
Independent | Exclusive | |
| (8) the right to designate the school the child will attend and to enroll the child in the school, subject to any eligibility or admissions requirements;
|
Exclusive | ||
| (9) the right to the services and earnings of the child;
|
Independent | ||
| (10) except when a guardian of the child’s estate or a guardian or attorney ad litem has been appointed for the child, the right to act as an agent of the child in relation to the child’s estate if the child’s action is required by a state, the United States, or a foreign government; and
(11) the right to: (A) apply for a passport for the child; (B) renew the child’s passport; and (C) maintain possession of the child’s passport.
|
Exclusive | Independent/Joint |
When you sit down with your order, grab a highlighter and work through these steps:
To give you a feel for how rights and duties show up in real orders, here is the style of wording you might see
(simplified and shortened for readability):
Your order will contain much more detail, but if you understand the structure behind this language, you’ll be much better
equipped to spot when something is missing, confusing, or unbalanced.
What’s the difference between an independent right and an exclusive right?
An independent right means each parent can act on their own (for example, either parent can schedule a routine doctor visit), though you may still have to notify the other parent. An exclusive right means only one parent can make that decision, and the other parent does not have authority to override it.
Can the court split decision-making by topic?
Yes. Courts often mix and match what is independent, joint, or exclusive in order to reduce conflict and protect the child’s best interest.
For example, one parent might have exclusive authority over education, while medical decisions are joint with a doctor as tie-breaker.
If I’m not the “primary” parent, do I still get school and medical records?
Generally yes. Texas law strongly protects a parent’s right to access records and communicate with teachers and providers, unless the court has specifically restricted those rights because of safety or other serious concerns.
What if our order requires agreement and we never agree?
If the order requires joint agreement but doesn’t name a tie-breaker, you may end up back in court. A modification can add “after conferring in good faith, Parent X has the right to make the final decision” or appoint a professional to break ties.
How do I know if I should enforce my order or try to change it?
As a general rule, you enforce clear orders that are being violated and you modify or clarify vague orders or orders that no longer fit your circumstances. Many cases involve a combination: enforcing some provisions and asking to modify others.
Your rights and duties on paper are the roadmap for your entire co-parenting relationship. Small differences in wording can make a huge
difference in real life—especially when conflict is high or circumstances change.
If you’d like help:
Call (281) 407-0961 to schedule a consultation with the Beveridge Law Firm, PLLC in Alvin, Texas.
At The Beveridge Law Firm, PLLC in Alvin, we focus exclusively on family law and appellate work for Brazoria, Harris and Galveston families, with a particular commitment to non-custodial parents when children are involved. Because we handle both trial-level family matters and appeals, we help clients think two steps ahead, and select the right vehicle for the situation.
Fields marked with an * are required
