I get some version of this question every week: “What is the judge actually looking at when they decide who gets primary custody?” People assume it’s about who’s the better person, or who makes more money, or who has the bigger house. It’s not. Texas courts use a specific framework that’s been the law since 1976, from a case called Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367. If you’re heading into a custody fight and you haven’t read this case, or at least understand what it says, you’re walking in blind.
The Holley factors aren’t a checklist where you need to win every box. They’re a lens. The court looks at what the child wants, if the child is old enough for that to matter. It looks at the child’s emotional and physical needs, now and down the road, not just today. It looks at emotional and physical danger, again both current and future. It looks at your parenting abilities, whether you have any programs or resources helping you parent well, and what your actual plans are for the child going forward. It looks at how stable your home is. And here’s the part people forget: it looks at your past acts or omissions that suggest the current arrangement isn’t working, and whether you have a legitimate excuse for any of that.
Here’s why this matters practically. If you’re representing yourself, you cannot walk into that courtroom and just talk about how much you love your kids or how the other parent wronged you. That’s not evidence of best interest, that’s venting. What moves a judge is testimony and documents that map onto these specific factors. Stability of home means show up with a lease, a school enrollment record, a stable job history. Parenting ability means bring witnesses, teachers, coaches, anyone who’s seen you parent well. Plans for the child means have an actual answer when asked where the kid will go to school and who’s picking them up from practice.
The flip side is just as important. If the other side is throwing out vague accusations with no connection to any of these factors, you can point that out directly. Ask them on cross what specific danger they’re claiming, tied to which factor. Vague character attacks without a Holley connection are noise, and judges who’ve been doing this a long time know noise when they hear it. Your job isn’t to win an argument about who’s the better person. It’s to give the court a clean, organized answer under the framework it’s actually required to use.
If you’re prepping for a custody hearing and want help organizing your evidence around these factors before you walk in, that’s exactly the kind of thing I help people with. Reach out anytime.
Ben Schooley
ben@prosecoachtx.com
www.prosecoachtx.com