Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
788 opinions found
In the Interest of T.L.K., Jr., S.M.C., and S.B.C., Children
COA04
After the Department of Family and Protective Services discovered a father living in a makeshift tent with his children and using illegal drugs, the trial court moved to terminate his parental rights. On appeal, the father challenged several grounds for termination but failed to contest the trial court's specific findings regarding endangerment. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, ruling that because a single 'predicate ground' is sufficient for termination, the father's failure to challenge the endangerment findings meant those grounds stood. The court further determined that while the father and children shared an emotional bond, the children's need for safety and stability in their current relative placement outweighed that bond, making termination in their best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination cases, an appellate challenge must address every specific legal ground found by the trial court; failing to challenge 'endangerment' findings can effectively end an appeal regardless of the emotional bond between the parent and child."
In the Interest of C.M.R., a Child
COA04
In this parental termination case, a father attempted to appeal a default judgment terminating his rights. Although he filed a motion for new trial within 30 days of the judgment, he did not file his notice of appeal until 87 days after the order was signed, believing the post-judgment motion extended his appellate deadline. The San Antonio Court of Appeals analyzed the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which classify termination cases as accelerated appeals. Under these rules, a notice of appeal is strictly due within 20 days of the judgment, and a motion for new trial does not extend this timeframe. The court held that because the father missed the 20-day window, the court lacked jurisdiction and was forced to dismiss the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"In parental termination cases, the deadline to appeal is exceptionally short and unforgiving. Unlike standard civil litigation, filing a motion for new trial does NOT give you extra time to file an appeal. You must file your notice of appeal within 20 days of the judge signing the order, regardless of any other motions filed in the trial court. Waiting even a few days too long can result in the permanent loss of your right to challenge the termination of your parental rights."
In the matter of the name change of D. A. M.-F.
COA08
After a father filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in a minor's name-change proceeding, the trial court ordered him to pay a $350 filing fee despite the statement being uncontested. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed the order, analyzing Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145. The court held that an uncontested Statement of Inability is conclusive as a matter of law and that a trial court abuses its discretion by ordering payment without providing the mandatory ten-day notice and conducting a formal oral evidentiary hearing.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 is a mandatory procedural framework, not a suggestion. A trial court cannot "informally" bypass the requirements for an indigency claim; any order to pay costs must be preceded by a formal motion or inquiry, ten days' notice, and a full evidentiary hearing."
In re J. T. J.
COA03
In this case, paternal grandparents intervened in a custody dispute seeking court-ordered access to their grandchild. They provided affidavits detailing a deep bond, including homeschooling the child and taking him on vacations. The child's mother challenged their standing, arguing they failed to meet the strict legal requirements of the Texas Family Code. The Court of Appeals agreed with the mother, ruling that grandparents must prove that denying access would "significantly impair" the child's physical health or emotional well-being. The court held that evidence of a close relationship and "unavoidable sadness" from separation is not enough to overcome the legal presumption that a fit parent acts in their child's best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"A close familial bond is not enough to grant grandparents legal standing in Texas; they must provide specific facts showing that a lack of access will cause documented physical or clinical emotional harm to the child."
In the Interest of J.S., a Child
COA04
After the Department of Family and Protective Services removed her child just days after birth due to domestic violence concerns and intellectual disabilities, a mother’s parental rights were terminated by the trial court. The mother appealed, arguing that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that termination was in the child’s best interest. The Fourth Court of Appeals analyzed the case using the Holley factors, focusing on the mother’s failure to complete her court-ordered service plan and the child’s strong bond with foster parents. The court affirmed the termination, holding that the child’s need for a stable, violence-free environment outweighed the mother’s partial efforts to comply with services.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination cases, a parent's failure to complete a service plan—especially regarding domestic violence—is often dispositive. Even when intellectual disabilities are present, the court will prioritize the child's need for permanency and the stability of their current placement over the parent's efforts or excuses."
In the Interest of B.R.H., A Child
COA06
In this modification case, the Sixth Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's order restricting a mother's visitation to supervised, therapeutic-only access after she unilaterally and unnecessarily admitted her child to a psychiatric facility. The appellate court analyzed the child's best interests under the Texas Family Code, weighing expert testimony from a counselor and an in-chambers interview where the child expressed fear of the mother's medical decision-making. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the mother’s access, awarding the father exclusive educational rights, and calculating child support based on the mother’s earning capacity instead of her reported income.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent's unilateral and unwarranted medical or psychiatric decisions can be legally characterized as harmful acts, providing sufficient grounds for a court to restrict that parent to supervised visitation and transfer exclusive decision-making rights to the other parent."
IN RE KENNETH EARL WELLS, JR., Relator
COA02
Relator Kenneth Earl Wells, Jr. filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a request for emergency temporary relief to vacate an order issued by the 467th District Court of Denton County. The Second Court of Appeals analyzed the petition under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8, evaluating whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion and whether the Relator lacked an adequate remedy by appeal. The court held that the Relator failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for extraordinary relief and denied both the petition and the request for temporary relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is not a substitute for a standard appeal. To succeed, a practitioner must present a meticulously documented record and demonstrate that the trial court's error was a clear violation of law or an arbitrary decision, rather than a mere disagreement over discretionary facts. Furthermore, one must prove that the resulting harm is irreparable and cannot be adequately rectified through the normal appellate process."
In The Interest of P.Y., A Child
COA14
In this case, an incarcerated father appealed the termination of his parental rights, challenging whether the Department of Family and Protective Services made 'reasonable efforts' to reunite him with his child and whether his criminal history constituted 'endangering conduct.' The Fourteenth Court of Appeals first determined that the father waived his right to complain about the trial court's lack of specific statutory findings because he failed to request additional or amended findings at the trial level. Analyzing the merits, the court found that the father's extensive criminal trajectory—including juvenile aggravated robbery and adult community supervision violations—established a persistent course of conduct that endangered the child's well-being. The court affirmed the termination, holding that procedural preservation rules apply to new statutory finding requirements and that incarceration does not shield a parent from an endangerment finding when a history of criminal conduct exists.
Litigation Takeaway
"To preserve a challenge regarding a trial court's failure to make specific findings under the Texas Family Code, a party must timely file a request for additional or amended findings; otherwise, the error is waived. Additionally, a parent's 'course of conduct' for endangerment purposes includes juvenile adjudications and parole violations, and the Department's duty to provide services is tempered by the practical realities of prison restrictions."
Rossley v. Pawkett
COA14
Appellant Daniel Joseph Rossley sought to appeal a trial court's denial of his motion to set aside a protective order. However, the appellate record contained only a docket sheet entry reflecting the ruling rather than a formal, signed written order. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(a) and established precedent, concluding that a docket entry is merely a memorandum for the court's convenience and cannot serve as a substitute for a signed judgment. Because the appellant failed to provide a signed order after being notified of the defect, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"A judge's oral ruling or a clerk's docket entry is not an appealable order; to preserve your right to appeal in Texas, you must ensure a formal written order is drafted, signed by the trial judge, and filed in the record."
IN RE CHARLES JEFF JAYROE
COA05
In the case of In re Charles Jeff Jayroe, the relator sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge trial court orders finding him in contempt and ordering his incarceration. The Fifth Court of Appeals denied the petition on procedural grounds without reviewing the underlying merits. The court's analysis centered on the relator's failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, specifically noting that the supporting record contained unsworn documents and lacked a declaration made under penalty of perjury. Furthermore, the court found the petition jurisdictionally deficient because the relator failed to provide competent evidence—such as a booking sheet or a sworn affidavit—proving he was actually in custody at the time of the filing. The court held that strict adherence to these authentication and evidentiary requirements is a prerequisite for habeas relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"When seeking a writ of habeas corpus to challenge an incarceration order, procedural precision is mandatory; you must provide a record fully authenticated under penalty of perjury and include sworn proof of the client's current confinement to even get the appellate court to look at the merits of your case."