A Judge’s Guide

MANAGING THE CHILD CUSTODY CASE
60
Judge J. Robert Lowenbach, Curtailing Continuances, ABA CHILD LAW PRACTICE,
March 2000, at 16.
61
STANDARDS RELATING TO TRIAL COURTS § 2.31 (American Bar Association
1992).
62
The discussion of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and appellate process presented
in this section is based in part on the author’s previous description in
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CENTER ON CHILDREN AND THE LAW & THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, MICHIGAN COURT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OF PROBATE COURTS’ HANDLING OF CHILD ABUSE
AND NEGLECT CASES: FINAL REPORT (American Bar Association 1997). This
report was submitted to the Michigan Supreme Court State Court
Administrative Office.
63
The discussion of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES recommendations is adapted in
part from the MICHIGAN COURT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ASSESSMENT, supra
note 65.
64
See Koslow’s v. Mackie, 796 S.W. 2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990)(held that “the trial court
[has] power implicit under rule 166 to provide in his pretrial order that the
refusal to participate in the status conference or the failure to file a timely joint
status report would result in the cause’s being ‘set for disposition hearing, at
which time cause will have to be shown why dismissal, default, or other sanctions
should not be imposed’ ”); see also In re Bledsoe, 41 S.W. 3d 807, 812 (Tex. App.
2001)(held that the “trial court has power, implicit under rule 166, to sanction a
party for failing to obey its pretrial orders”).
65
See Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., 97 S.W.3d 303 (Tex. App. 2003)(held that
the purpose of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166 is to assist in the disposition
of the case without undue expense or burden to the parties); see also Mission
Municipal Hospital v. Bryant, 563 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. App. 1977)(held that the
purpose of a pretrial hearing is to aid the court in narrowing the issues and in
disposing of other matters which may assist in the final disposition of the
action).
66
In Texas, courts look to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (TRCP) 166 for authority
over pretrial scheduling orders.
67
Koslow’s v. Mackie, 796 S.W. 2d 700 (Tex. 1990) stated that “[w]ithout the power
to require appropriate action, the pretrial conference rule would be
meaningless. Specifying the sanctions that may be imposed is appropriate to
‘aid in the disposition of the action’ to compel the parties to obey the pretrial
directive.” See also Hakemy Bros., Ltd. v. State Bank & Trust Co., 189 S.W.3d 920
(Tex. App. – Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (trial court did not err by denying an
amendment to a petition where it conflicted with a scheduling order and added
a new cause of action); Singleton v. Northwest Tex. Healthcare Sys., LEXIS 1594
(Tex. App. – Amarillo 2006, no pet.)(trial court did not abuse its discretion in
granting defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's second amended petition
29