The Texas Holley factors are a nine-part framework the Texas Supreme Court laid out in Holley v. Adams (1976) to help judges decide what serves a child’s best interest in conservatorship, possession, and access disputes. Texas Family Code § 153.002 makes best interest the primary consideration in every one of those cases, and the Holley list gives judges a concrete way to reach that conclusion.1State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.002 – Best Interest of Child, Rebuttable Presumption in Suit Between Parent and Nonparent2Justia. Holley v. Adams The factors are non-exhaustive, no single one automatically outweighs the others, and Texas statutes layer additional rules on top of them in cases involving family violence.
The Nine Holley Factors
The Texas Supreme Court identified these considerations as the ones most relevant to a child’s welfare, while noting the list “is by no means exhaustive.”2Justia. Holley v. Adams
- The desires of the child, weighed against their age and maturity.
- The child’s emotional and physical needs, both now and in the future.
- Any emotional or physical danger to the child, now and in the future.
- The parental abilities of each person seeking custody.
- The programs available to assist the parent, such as counseling, parenting classes, or support groups.
- The plans each parent holds for the child, including education, health care, and daily life.
- The stability of the home or proposed placement.
- Acts or omissions by the parent suggesting the existing parent-child relationship is improper.
- Any excuse for those acts or omissions.
These are not scored independently. The court builds a composite picture. A parent with a modest home and strong daily involvement can outperform a parent with a larger home and little consistent interaction. Substance wins over appearances.
How Judges Actually Weigh the Factors
No single Holley factor automatically ranks above another. Judges balance them, and the weight of each shifts with the facts. Evidence of physical danger to the child will dominate over which parent lives in the nicer school district. When both homes are safe, the analysis tends to concentrate on future plans, stability, and the child’s stated preference.
Because the list is explicitly non-exhaustive, judges can consider things the nine factors do not name outright: a parent’s work schedule, the proximity of extended family, or the child’s bond with siblings in the household. That flexibility is a strength, but it means outcomes track closely with what evidence each parent actually puts in front of the court. Judges do not investigate on their own. A parent who claims stability but offers nothing to support it gives the court nothing to weigh under factor seven.
The Statutory Starting Point
Section 153.002 sets best interest as the primary consideration but does not define it with a checklist or formula. That vagueness is deliberate. Families differ from one another, and an arrangement that protects one child could harm another. The Holley factors fill that space by giving judges structured criteria without forcing every family through an identical template.1State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.002 – Best Interest of Child, Rebuttable Presumption in Suit Between Parent and Nonparent
Texas law also starts from the position that naming both parents as joint managing conservators serves the child’s best interest. Section 153.131 creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of that arrangement. Joint managing conservatorship does not mean equal time. It means both parents share major decisions about education, medical care, and religious upbringing, though one parent typically holds the exclusive right to determine where the child lives. The presumption disappears when the court finds family violence between the parents. Outside that trigger, a parent seeking sole managing conservatorship carries the burden of proving joint management is not in the child’s best interest, and that requires concrete evidence rather than general complaints about the other parent’s lifestyle.3State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.131 – Presumption That Joint Managing Conservatorship Is in Best Interest of Child
The court cannot favor one parent based on sex or marital status. Fathers and mothers stand on equal legal footing when seeking conservatorship.
Where the Child’s Preference Fits In
Factor one asks what the child wants. Texas Family Code § 153.009 gives that preference a formal channel: the judge must interview a child who is 12 or older in chambers if any party, the amicus attorney, or the child’s attorney ad litem requests it.4State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.009 – Interview of Child in Chambers For children under 12, the interview is discretionary. Judges can also initiate one on their own.
The child’s stated preference is one input among many. Section 153.009 says explicitly that interviewing the child “does not diminish the discretion of the court in determining the best interests of the child.”4State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.009 – Interview of Child in Chambers A 13-year-old who wants to live with a parent because that parent enforces fewer rules will not necessarily get that outcome. Judges evaluate the reasoning alongside every other factor. A mature teenager with a thoughtful explanation still carries real practical weight, especially when the other factors are close to equal.
How Family Violence Changes the Analysis
Family violence does not just tilt the Holley analysis. It rewrites parts of the framework. Section 153.004 requires judges to consider evidence of abusive physical force or sexual abuse against a spouse, a parent of the child, or anyone under 18 within the two years before the case was filed or during the case itself.5State of Texas. href=”https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/GetStatute.aspx?Code=FA&Value=153.004″ target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Texas Family Code FAM 153.004
The consequences escalate with severity. When credible evidence shows a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse, the court cannot appoint the parents as joint managing conservators at all. A rebuttable presumption also arises that naming the abusive parent as sole managing conservator, or as the parent who determines the child’s primary residence, is not in the child’s best interest.6State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 153.004 In the most serious cases, the court may deny access to the child entirely if evidence shows a history or pattern of family violence in the two years before filing.
Even when a parent keeps some form of possession, the court must weigh family violence when deciding whether to restrict or limit access. Supervised visitation is a common outcome. This is where the statute and the Holley factors overlap most sharply: violence speaks directly to emotional and physical danger (factor three), parental abilities (factor four), and acts or omissions suggesting an improper relationship (factor eight).
Building Evidence Around Each Factor
The factors work as an organizing checklist for evidence, and judges notice when a parent’s case maps cleanly onto them.
School records are among the most useful materials a parent can bring. Attendance logs, grade reports, and teacher communications show which parent is engaged with the child’s education and whether the child is thriving. Medical records and immunization histories demonstrate how a parent manages health needs. Both feed directly into factor two (emotional and physical needs) and factor four (parental abilities).
For factor seven, home stability, concrete financial records matter more than testimony about how stable a home feels. Mortgage or lease payments, utility records, and documentation of a consistent address over time tell the court the child’s living situation will not be disrupted. Enrollment in parenting classes, family counseling, or substance abuse programs speaks to factor five, the programs available to support you as a parent. Courts view proactive engagement with these resources favorably, particularly when past behavior is a concern.
Factor six rewards planning. A parent who walks in with a detailed written plan for schooling, activities, and medical care looks prepared. A parent who answers those questions vaguely looks like they haven’t thought about it.
Character witnesses fill in the rest. Teachers, pediatricians, coaches, and neighbors who can speak to your daily involvement with the child provide third-party validation that courts trust more than self-serving testimony. Line up potential witnesses early, and make sure they can speak to specific, observable interactions rather than general impressions.
Applying the Factors to a Modification
A final custody order is not permanent, and the Holley factors return whenever a parent asks the court to change one. Texas Family Code § 156.101 allows modification when the change serves the child’s best interest and at least one additional condition is met.7State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 156.101 – Grounds for Modification of Order Establishing Conservatorship or Possession and Access The most common ground is that the circumstances of the child, a conservator, or another affected party have materially and substantially changed since the original order or the signing of a mediated settlement agreement.
Two other grounds exist. A child who is at least 12 can express a preference in chambers under § 153.009, and that alone can support modification. Alternatively, when the conservator with the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence has voluntarily given up primary care and possession to someone else for at least six months, modification is available. That six-month relinquishment ground does not apply when the transfer happened during military deployment or temporary duty.7State of Texas. Texas Family Code FAM 156.101 – Grounds for Modification of Order Establishing Conservatorship or Possession and Access
Timing matters. Within the first year after a custody order, the modification standard is significantly higher. A parent filing during that window generally must show that the child’s present environment may endanger their physical health or significantly harm their emotional development, unless the primary conservator agrees to the change or has relinquished care for six months. After the first year, the material and substantial change standard applies. Examples courts have recognized include relocation, domestic violence, a parent’s substance abuse, instability in the home, and significant changes in the child’s age or needs.
Every modification petition still has to clear the best interest hurdle. Proving a material change is not enough on its own. The court applies the Holley factors to the new circumstances just as it did in the original proceeding, asking whether the proposed change actually improves the child’s situation rather than simply disrupting it.