This may come as a shock... [brace yourself]... words have meaning!
A word is just a word... right?
Hopefully it should come as no surprise that one single word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
With one word, we can go from perfectly normal:
As you can see, changing one word can (does) drastically change the entire sentence.
The Texas Supreme Court (TSC) has addressed this topic several times. It was not as direct as what I am mentioning here however, the meaning behind what they are saying is very much the same.
Many times have the TSC covered this topic, citing that the Legislature uses a word in the statute for a "purpose".
This site is dedicated to how the court [divorce] gets it wrong.
A large portion of this will be going over how to read.
More precisely, how to read statutes in the manner in which they are written, commonly referred to as "PLAIN LANGUAGE" by State Supreme Courts.
A fair bit of this will be a process of showing people that the "plain language" is vastly different than the "interpretation" that the courts often use.
For example;
Hopefully it should come as no surprise that one single word can change the whole meaning of a sentence.
With one word, we can go from perfectly normal:
- The sky is blue.
- The sky is cracked.
As you can see, changing one word can (does) drastically change the entire sentence.
The Texas Supreme Court (TSC) has addressed this topic several times. It was not as direct as what I am mentioning here however, the meaning behind what they are saying is very much the same.
- We rely on the plain meaning of the text as expressing legislative intent unless a different meaning is supplied by legislative definition or is apparent from the context, or the plain meaning leads to absurd results. See City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625-26 (Tex.2008). We presume the Legislature selected language in a statute with care and that every word or phrase was used with a purpose in mind. See In re Caballero, 272 S.W.3d 595, 599 (Tex.2008); Chastain v. Koonce, 700 S.W.2d 579, 582 (Tex.1985).
Texas Lottery Com'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 SW 3d 628 - Tex: Supreme Court 2010 - In this context, several principles guide us. Generally, we will accept the words used according to their ordinary meaning, unless given a specific statutory definition; we will not give them an exaggerated, forced, or constrained meaning. Also, we will presume that the Legislature used every word of a statute for a purpose. Finally, we will try to avoid construing a statutory provision in isolation from the rest of the statute; we should consider the act as a whole, and not just single phrases, clauses, or sentences.
Cities of Austin v. Southwestern Bell, 92 SW 3d 434 - Tex: Supreme Court 2002
Many times have the TSC covered this topic, citing that the Legislature uses a word in the statute for a "purpose".
This site is dedicated to how the court [divorce] gets it wrong.
A large portion of this will be going over how to read.
More precisely, how to read statutes in the manner in which they are written, commonly referred to as "PLAIN LANGUAGE" by State Supreme Courts.
A fair bit of this will be a process of showing people that the "plain language" is vastly different than the "interpretation" that the courts often use.
For example;
- Texas Family Code Sec. 153.251. POLICY AND GENERAL APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES. (a) The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended to guide the courts in ordering the terms and conditions for possession of a child by a parent named as a possessory conservator or as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator.
Sigh.... It's like English class all over again
Lets break down this sentence into its basic parts.
According to this sentence structure, the SPO affects two (2) types of appointed parents.
We are going to focus on the parent who is appointed as JMC [the second one].
Only focusing on how the SPO affects JMC we can re-write the sentence this way.
What follows the world "OR" is "as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
We can be certain that this is the second part of the sentence, we now need to figure out where the first part.
What it can NOT be:
In order for this to make sense as one cohesive sentence, it must be read as:
I do not think we need to get very in-depth as to what the SPO is.
Let's just take for granted that the SPO (for all intents and purposes as far as our argument here) is:
Now let's get down to the gritty.
The part we are going to focus on is:
Those words are "THE" and "MINIMUM".
- The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended
- to guide the courts in ordering the terms and conditions for possession of a child by a parent named as a possessory conservator
- or
- as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator.
- Standard Possession Order (SPO)
- Possession for a Possessory Conservator
- Possession for a Joint Managing Conservator (JMC)
According to this sentence structure, the SPO affects two (2) types of appointed parents.
We are going to focus on the parent who is appointed as JMC [the second one].
Only focusing on how the SPO affects JMC we can re-write the sentence this way.
- "The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended... as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
What follows the world "OR" is "as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
We can be certain that this is the second part of the sentence, we now need to figure out where the first part.
What it can NOT be:
- The guidelines established in the standard possession order are ... as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator.
- The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended to ... as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator.
In order for this to make sense as one cohesive sentence, it must be read as:
- "The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended... as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
- "The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended to guide the courts in ordering the terms and conditions for possession of a child by a parent named as a possessory conservator"
I do not think we need to get very in-depth as to what the SPO is.
Let's just take for granted that the SPO (for all intents and purposes as far as our argument here) is:
- 1st weekend
- 3rd weekend
- 5th weekend
- half of the holidays
- the bulk of the summer
Now let's get down to the gritty.
The part we are going to focus on is:
- "as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator"
Those words are "THE" and "MINIMUM".
See if you can spot the difference
I will give you two sentences, see if you spot the difference in the meaning behind them.
Quickly breaking this down we come up with;
... SPO are intended as a minimum possession for a JMC.
The question you need to be asking here is, "WHAT MINIMUM POSSESSION IS THAT"?
The use of the word "A" makes the term "minimum possession" indefinite.
It [minimum possession] can have any number of meanings and if you are a judge with discretion you are then able to apply what ever you feel like.
Examining number 2.
When we break down this sentence we come up with;
... SPO are intended as the possession for a JMC
The word "THE" makes the term "minimum possession" definite.
"There can be only one" (quoting the movie Highlander).
The Legislature is talking about a definitive "minimum possession" and that is the possession that the SPO gives.
Make sense?
- "The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended... as a minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
- "The guidelines established in the standard possession order are intended... as the minimum possession for a joint managing conservator".
Quickly breaking this down we come up with;
... SPO are intended as a minimum possession for a JMC.
The question you need to be asking here is, "WHAT MINIMUM POSSESSION IS THAT"?
The use of the word "A" makes the term "minimum possession" indefinite.
It [minimum possession] can have any number of meanings and if you are a judge with discretion you are then able to apply what ever you feel like.
Examining number 2.
When we break down this sentence we come up with;
... SPO are intended as the possession for a JMC
The word "THE" makes the term "minimum possession" definite.
"There can be only one" (quoting the movie Highlander).
The Legislature is talking about a definitive "minimum possession" and that is the possession that the SPO gives.
Make sense?
Minimum as opposed to Maximum
The second word to focus on is the word "minimum".
In the plain language of the Legislature, the SPO offers a "MINIMUM" possession for a JMC
Reading more into it, it leave some discretion to the court to give MORE than the SPO but at the same turn it ties the hands of the judge to give less possession than the SPO affords the JMC.
In the plain language of the Legislature, the SPO offers a "MINIMUM" possession for a JMC
- **Side note, this is of course setting side the limitations found in 153.251(d)**
Reading more into it, it leave some discretion to the court to give MORE than the SPO but at the same turn it ties the hands of the judge to give less possession than the SPO affords the JMC.
