In the Interest of C.H.C.

When a pro se party seeks to appeal a trial court’s decision and properly files a sufficient and unchallenged affidavit establishing indigency and requesting a free record on appeal, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure mandate that the party be provided the record. Because the affidavit in this case was not timely challenged, we reverse the court of appeals’ dismissal of this appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings.

Petitioner Christina M. Hawkins and Respondent Kyle Van Corey *fn1 are the parents of CHC. In 2004, a Dallas County trial court entered an order modifying the parent-child relationship for CHC by recognizing Corey’s paternity, appointing Hawkins as Sole Managing Conservator and Corey as Possessory Conservator over CHC, and requiring Corey to pay child support. *fn2 Thereafter both parties brought contempt and modification actions, each alleging violations of the 2004 order by the other. Among other things, Corey alleged that Hawkins denied him visitation rights with CHC on two separate Thursday afternoons. Hawkins complained that Corey was also not complying with the 2004 order, noting his conviction for interfering with child custody, her $5,000 judgment against him for malicious prosecution, and his alleged arrearage in child support payments. The trial court held a bench trial on the cross-motions, with Corey proceeding first. According to Hawkins, the trial court set a time limit of six hours of evidence, only one and a half hours of which were allotted to Hawkins. After receiving evidence at the hearing, the trial court modified the custody order and held Hawkins in contempt of court for violating the orders for Corey’s visitation. On September 23, 2008, the trial court signed a contempt order. *fn3 The next day Hawkins, through counsel, filed a motion to modify the judgment, arguing among other things that the trial court did not provide sufficient time for her to present proof challenging alleged violations of the visitation order and that the documentary evidence she provided conclusively proved she had not violated the order.