Opinion Library

Termination of Parental Rights

In the Interest of B.E.S.D. and T.D.G., Children

COA11

In this parental-rights termination appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that termination was in the best interest of the children under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(2). The court reviewed the record under the clear-and-convincing standard and applied the nonexclusive Holley factors, emphasizing that the same evidence supporting predicate endangerment grounds can also support best interest. The court focused on the mother’s repeated marijuana use during multiple pregnancies, repeated positive drug tests at childbirth, long CPS history, prior removals, domestic violence, instability, and failure to make lasting changes despite services. As to the father of B.E.S.D., the court likewise held that his refusal to cooperate, role in the unsafe environment, and conduct supporting the predicate findings also supported best interest. The termination order was affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"Pattern matters. Texas courts may infer future danger from a parent’s past conduct, and a best-interest finding does not fail just because every Holley factor was not proved. In family-law cases involving conservatorship, modification, or supervised possession, lawyers should build the record chronologically around recurring substance abuse, domestic violence, instability, noncompliance, and failure to benefit from services—not isolated incidents."

In the Matter of the Marriage of Michael Adam Nelson and Jhoelayne Paixao Nelson and in the Interest of M.P.N. and M.A.P.N., Children

COA13

After the parties’ divorce decree was signed, one side sought sanctions and the other later filed a petition to modify the parent-child relationship. The trial court ruled on the sanctions dispute, but the modification case remained pending. Applying Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held the sanctions order was not final because it did not dispose of all pending claims and parties, and it lacked clear and unequivocal finality language. Because no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal from the sanctions order, the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Litigation Takeaway

"Do not assume a post-divorce sanctions order can be appealed by itself. In family-law cases, appellate finality depends on whether all live claims in the case have been resolved, including later-filed modification proceedings. Before filing a notice of appeal, check the full docket and consider severance if you need a stand-alone final judgment."

Hill v. State

COA10

In Hill v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s unpreserved facial constitutional challenge to the continuous-violence statute and held the jury charge properly tracked the statute, including its non-unanimity language and disjunctive culpable mental states. The court also addressed a mismatch between the written judgment and the appellate record: although the judgment said the enhancement paragraph was “found not true,” the record showed the jury found it true. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), the court reformed the judgment to make the record speak the truth and affirmed as modified.

Litigation Takeaway

"For family-law litigators, the key lesson is twofold: preserve appellate complaints precisely in the trial court, and always compare the signed order to the actual record. When a written judgment or order misstates what the court or jury actually found, appellate reformation may be available if the record conclusively shows the correct ruling."

General trial issues

Linh Hong Dang v. The State of Texas

COA05

In Dang v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a party cannot complain on appeal about excluded testimony unless the party made an offer of proof or the substance of the testimony was otherwise apparent from the record. The appellant argued the trial court wrongly excluded testimony about alleged law-enforcement pressure on the complainants’ mother, her alleged desire to pay attorney’s fees, and impeachment evidence about inconsistent timing of the alleged abuse. The court concluded the first two complaints were not preserved because counsel did not make an offer of proof and the missing testimony was not clear from context. On the timing issue, the court held the trial court acted within its discretion because counsel failed to satisfy the Rule 613 predicate for impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. With no preserved evidentiary error, the cumulative-error argument also failed, and the judgments were affirmed.

Litigation Takeaway

"If the judge excludes testimony, do not stop at 'objection sustained.' Make an immediate offer of proof, state why the evidence is admissible, and, if using prior inconsistent statements, lay the full Rule 613 foundation. In family-law cases built on credibility, bias, coaching, motive, or inconsistent timelines, an unpreserved exclusion issue is usually dead on appeal."

Child Custody

Ex parte Brayden Channing Coin

COA02

In Ex parte Brayden Channing Coin, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Article 11.072 habeas relief from a guilty plea to sexual assault. Coin argued his lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate whether the charged conduct occurred before he turned seventeen, which would have undermined adult-court jurisdiction under Penal Code section 8.07(b), and he also claimed that bad advice made his plea involuntary. The court held those claims failed because the habeas court was entitled to credit trial counsel’s evidence that Coin personally admitted post-seventeen assaults, that counsel discussed the significance of his age, and that Coin chose a probation-focused plea strategy. Given those supported credibility findings, additional investigation into conflicting timing evidence such as the Fortnite release issue would not have changed the result, a jurisdictional challenge was not shown to be meritorious, and Coin could not show under Hill v. Lockhart that he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial.

Litigation Takeaway

"Credibility findings can decide the whole case. If the trial court credits evidence that a party was advised of the key issue, understood the stakes, and made a strategic choice anyway, later claims of bad advice, poor investigation, or involuntary agreement usually fail. For family lawyers, the lesson is to build a record of admissions, advice given, informed consent, and multiple timeline anchors so the trial court’s findings will survive appeal."

In re LOH Elkhart, LLC d/b/a Elkhart Oaks Care Center, Live Oak Healthcare, LLC, Senior Living Properties, LLC, SLP Management Holdings, LLC, and LOH Management, LLC

COA12

In this mandamus proceeding, the Tyler Court of Appeals held that a party cannot revive a case dismissed for want of prosecution by filing an unverified motion to reinstate and later trying to supply Rule 306a proof after the trial court’s plenary power has expired. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed, and her later motion to reinstate alleged lack of notice but was not verified and did not state the date she first received notice or actual knowledge of the dismissal order. The court strictly applied Rules 165a and 306a, explaining that a verified motion is required to extend plenary power and that delayed-notice relief requires a sworn Rule 306a(5) motion proving the date of first notice or actual knowledge. Because those requirements were not timely met, the trial court’s plenary power expired before it signed the reinstatement order, making that order void. Mandamus relief was therefore proper.

Litigation Takeaway

"If your family-law case gets DWOP’d, lack of notice alone does not save you. To extend deadlines, you must promptly file a verified motion and, if relying on delayed notice, strictly comply with Rule 306a(5) with sworn proof of the exact date notice or actual knowledge was first received. If the other side gets a reinstatement order without a verified Rule 165a motion or proper Rule 306a proof, that order may be void and vulnerable to mandamus."

In the Interest of S.M.S., a Child

COA12

In this SAPCR conservatorship appeal, a pro se appellant challenged a trial court order naming multiple nonparents as joint managing conservators and raised twenty-three appellate issues, including standing and jurisdiction complaints. The Tyler Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the appellant’s brief failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1: it listed issues but provided no meaningful record citations, no supporting authority, and no developed legal analysis. Applying settled law that pro se litigants are held to the same briefing standards as attorneys, the court held that inadequately briefed complaints are waived and affirmed the conservatorship order in full.

Litigation Takeaway

"On appeal, even potentially strong family-law issues are lost if they are not tied to the record, legal authority, and a developed argument. For appellants, Rule 38.1 compliance is essential; for appellees, inadequate briefing can be a powerful path to affirmance without reaching the merits."

Property Division

Austin G. Croom v. Casey L. Croom

COA05

In Croom v. Croom, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a divorce decree unambiguously awarded the wife a continuing one-half share of the parties’ present interest in AP Capital, separate from a separate $397,000 equalization judgment. Reading the decree as a whole, the court rejected the husband’s argument that the AP Capital award had been monetized and absorbed into the equalization payment merely because the asset’s value was used in the divorce balance-sheet calculations. The court concluded that “present interest” meant the community’s ownership stake at divorce, not just its then-current dollar value, and that the decree’s language awarding rights and privileges “past, present, or future” confirmed the wife’s entitlement to later sale proceeds attributable to that interest. Because the husband kept and spent those proceeds after AP Capital sold its asset, the evidence supported liability for civil theft, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court affirmed the substantive judgment but reversed and remanded the attorney’s-fees award.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a divorce decree separately awards a spouse an ownership interest in a business asset, do not assume a separate equalization payment buys that interest out unless the decree expressly says so. Draft decrees with precision: say whether the spouse gets the asset itself or a cash buyout, and if future distributions are intended to follow ownership, say that clearly. In enforcement, a spouse who pockets post-divorce proceeds from property awarded to the other spouse may face not just enforcement remedies, but tort and civil-theft exposure."

Property Division Enforcement

In the Matter of the Marriage of Angela Zesiger and Bryan Zesiger

COA07

The Amarillo Court of Appeals held that a Texas trial court could enforce and clarify a divorce decree awarding a former spouse one-half of the military retirement benefits accrued during marriage. After Bryan retired, the trial court converted Angela’s formula-based share of disposable retired pay into a monthly dollar amount, included cost-of-living adjustments, entered an arrearage judgment, and ordered execution of payment paperwork. On appeal, Bryan argued federal law preempted the order, but the court rejected that argument because the USFSPA expressly allows state courts to divide and enforce disposable retired pay, and the order did not reach non-disposable pay or interfere with disability-waiver rights protected by Mansell and Howell. The court further held that expressing the already-awarded share in monthly terms was a permissible clarification under Texas Family Code Chapter 9, not an impermissible modification of the property division.

Litigation Takeaway

"If a divorce decree validly awards a share of disposable military retired pay, Texas courts can later clarify the formula into a monthly amount, include COLAs, and award arrears without violating federal law—so long as the court is enforcing the original division rather than redividing property or reaching disability-waived/non-disposable pay."

In re Ahmed Ahmed

COA12

In a SAPCR-related mandamus proceeding, Ahmed challenged the trial court’s denial of his plea to the jurisdiction. The Tyler Court of Appeals denied relief because Ahmed failed to provide a Rule 52.7-compliant mandamus record. Although he claimed no testimony was taken at the hearing, that assertion was disputed and he admitted he was not present, so the court could not verify what occurred below. Without authenticated materials showing the nature of the hearing and any relevant testimony, the court could not evaluate whether he had established a clear abuse of discretion and entitlement to mandamus relief.

Litigation Takeaway

"Mandamus can fail even when the underlying complaint may have merit if the relator does not bring a complete, authenticated Rule 52.7 record. In family-law cases, always secure and file the reporter’s record, material pleadings, orders, and proof of whether testimony was or was not taken before seeking emergency appellate relief."