How does consolidation work when multiple cases are filed in Texas courts?
This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:
Pena v. The State of Texas
COA07 — January 28, 2026
In Pena v. State, the Seventh Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court could assess $1,600 in attorney’s fees and duplicate court costs against a defendant who had been determined indigent and appointed counsel. The legal issues arose from two criminal cases adjudicated in a single, consolidated proceeding. The court analyzed Texas law, which presumes that a party remains indigent throughout the proceedings unless a 'material change' in financial circumstances is proven. Additionally, the court reviewed statutory prohibitions against assessing court costs multiple times for cases heard together. The court held that the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees without evidence of the defendant's ability to pay and by double-charging court costs, resulting in a modification of the judgments to strike the improper fees and costs.
Litigation Takeaway
“When multiple legal matters are heard in a single trial, always audit the clerk’s bill of costs to ensure you aren't being double-charged for administrative fees. Furthermore, if a party has filed a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs (Rule 145), they are generally shielded from paying attorney's fees unless the opposing party can prove a material improvement in their financial situation.”
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.”