Are Rule 11 agreements in family court binding and enforceable?
This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:
In the Matter of the Marriage of Gertha Marie Chatman and Kraton Dorrell Chatman and In the Interest of A.M.H. and A.L.H., Children
COA12 — February 11, 2026
This case involved a custody dispute between a biological father and nonparent intervenors (the maternal aunt and uncle) who had been caring for twin infants. The primary issues were whether the nonparents had legal standing to seek custody and whether the trial court erred in awarding them conservatorship over the fit biological father. The Twelfth Court of Appeals determined that while the nonparents' initial petition was properly struck, their second petition established standing because they had exercised exclusive 'actual care, control, and possession' for at least six months following the mother's departure from the home. However, the court reversed the conservatorship award, holding that under the Texas 'parental presumption,' a nonparent must prove that a parent's appointment would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional development. The court found that evidence of the father's past drug use and the intervenors' concerns about his 'lifestyle' were insufficient to meet this high evidentiary bar.
Litigation Takeaway
“Standing is a jurisdictional threshold that can be cured by the passage of time; a nonparent who fails the six-month residency requirement today may acquire standing through a subsequent filing once the timeframe is met. However, establishing standing does not guarantee custody, as nonparents must overcome the powerful 'parental presumption' with specific evidence of significant impairment to the child, rather than mere 'best interest' comparisons or vague lifestyle grievances.”
YOLANDA HERNANDEZ, Appellant v. EKISRA FRED LOUNNARATH AND AMX PCS, INC., Appellee
COA05 — February 5, 2026
When a party fails to appear for trial, leading to a dismissal for want of prosecution, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) requires the court to reinstate the case if the failure was due to an 'accident or mistake' rather than 'conscious indifference.' In this case, a law firm missed a trial setting because of a clerical calendaring error and a mistaken belief that a proposed scheduling order would be signed. The trial court denied reinstatement, finding the attorney's reliance on unsigned orders unreasonable. The Dallas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that even if an attorney’s mistake is negligent or 'objectively unreasonable,' it does not constitute conscious indifference. As long as the failure to appear was not intentional or a purposeful disregard of the court's authority, the trial court must reinstate the case.
Litigation Takeaway
“A simple clerical error or an 'unreasonable' misunderstanding of a court deadline is sufficient to reinstate a dismissed case, as the law protects litigants from losing their day in court due to an attorney’s non-intentional administrative mistakes.”