Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1576 opinions found
T. R. and P. M. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In this parental-rights termination appeal, Mother argued that her completion of Department-referred services defeated findings that reunification efforts had failed and that her home remained dangerous. Applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations, the Third Court of Appeals distinguished formal service-plan compliance from actual behavioral change. Mother’s continued relationship with Father—despite recurring domestic violence, drug use, criminal conduct, instability, and prior restrictions intended to protect their vulnerable, nonverbal autistic child—supported a firm conviction that the original dangers persisted. The court held that legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the Department’s reasonable reunification efforts, continuing danger, and best-interest findings; it also found no nonfrivolous appellate issue for Father and affirmed termination of both parents’ rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Completing a service plan does not establish that a parent has remedied the conditions endangering a child. Termination practitioners should connect each service to the parent’s later conduct and use objective, chronological evidence to show whether the parent implemented what was learned. Parents’ counsel must prove sustained behavioral change—not merely attendance—while proposed termination orders should separately and specifically describe the Department’s reasonable efforts as required by Texas Family Code section 161.001(g)."
Udall v. Minns
COA03
In a child-support and medical-support enforcement proceeding, the trial court held Mother in contempt, imposed concurrent two-week jail terms but suspended commitment, and rendered a cumulative monetary judgment of $93,778.44. Mother directly appealed, challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, reimbursement of medical expenses, and the contempt adjudication. The Third Court of Appeals held that Travis County’s central-docket system permitted the assigned district judge to act for the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and left the monetary enforcement relief intact. It further held that contempt cannot be reviewed by direct appeal, even when included in an otherwise appealable enforcement order and even when commitment is suspended. Because Mother was not confined, she was required to challenge contempt through mandamus rather than habeas corpus. The court affirmed the appealable portions of the order and dismissed the contempt issue for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"An enforcement order may require more than one appellate vehicle: directly appeal independently appealable monetary relief, but challenge contempt by mandamus if the client is unconfined or by habeas corpus if the client is confined. A suspended jail commitment does not make contempt directly appealable, so counsel should assess original-proceeding and emergency-relief options immediately."
In Re Ogor Anumbor
COA05
In this original proceeding, the relator sought orders compelling a trial court to vacate a trial setting, grant a continuance, hold hearings, reduce alleged oral rulings to writing, enforce discovery orders, and provide free transcripts; he also challenged recusal orders issued by a regional presiding judge. The Fifth Court of Appeals concluded that the relator failed to provide the challenged temporary and discovery orders or authenticated transcripts of the relevant hearings, as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a), and therefore could not establish a clear abuse of discretion. The court further reasoned that mandamus generally may compel a trial court to rule but may not dictate the ruling, that docket management lies within the trial court’s broad discretion, that relief based on inaction requires proof of a predicate request and refusal, and that relief cannot be directed against a judge who was not named as a respondent. The court denied the mandamus petition and denied the emergency motion as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"A potentially valid mandamus complaint can fail without a complete, authenticated record. Include every material motion and challenged order, transcripts of relevant testimony and oral rulings, and proof that the requested action was presented to the trial court and refused or left unaddressed. Frame the requested relief to compel a ruling—not a preferred result—and name the judicial officer who made the challenged ruling as the proper respondent."
In the Interest of M.J.-W., a Child
COA05
The Department sought termination of both parents’ rights to a medically fragile child after the parties signed a statutorily compliant, irrevocable mediated settlement agreement providing for termination if neither proposed relative placement was approved. The trial court enforced the agreement after evidence showed that one relative lacked required medical training and no home assessment had been completed for the other. On Father’s appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw. After independently reviewing jurisdiction, enforceability, evidentiary sufficiency, and Anders compliance, the Dallas Court of Appeals found no arguable ground for reversal and affirmed. But under In re P.M., the court denied counsel’s motion to withdraw because frivolousness alone is not good cause; appointed counsel remained responsible for consulting with Father and, if requested, filing an Anders-compliant petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.
Litigation Takeaway
"An Anders brief does not end appointed representation in a parental-termination appeal. Even after affirmance and a finding that the appeal is frivolous, counsel must monitor further-review deadlines, consult with the parent, and file an Anders-compliant petition for review if requested unless withdrawal is granted for independent good cause. The case also underscores that a compliant mediated settlement agreement can support termination when its clearly drafted conditions are proven to have occurred."
Los Indios Ventures, Inc. v. Barton Creek Southwest Property Owners Association
COA03
Property-owner associations challenged a restrictive covenant and its amendments governing land owned by Los Indios Ventures, Inc., seeking declarations and injunctions that would render the instruments void or unenforceable. Because Los Indios had not been joined before the trial court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Third Court of Appeals examined the practical effect of the requested relief under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39. It concluded that invalidating or restricting enforcement of the covenant would directly impair Los Indios’s property and contractual interests, making it a required party. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings with Los Indios joined as a party.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before seeking summary judgment or a final property ruling, identify and join every person or entity whose title, lien, contract, trust, or other legally protected interest would be invalidated or impaired. In family-law cases, a court may divide a spouse’s ownership interest, but it generally should not adjudicate property owned by a nonparty entity or third party without giving that rights holder notice and a meaningful opportunity to participate."
Toliver v. Norton
COA07
Edward Toliver challenged Texas orders terminating the child’s parents’ rights and granting an adoption, alleging that the trial court lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction and that he received no notice of the proceeding. Because he filed his bill of review and declaratory-judgment action approximately eleven months after the orders were signed, the Seventh Court of Appeals held that Texas Family Code §§ 161.211 and 162.012 barred the challenge after six months. Treating those provisions as jurisdictional, the court concluded that neither alleged UCCJEA defects, lack of notice, nor characterization of the orders as void avoided the statutory bar. It vacated the judgment in the bill-of-review case and rendered dismissal for want of jurisdiction, while affirming dismissal of Toliver’s separate SAPCR for lack of standing.
Litigation Takeaway
"A challenge to a Texas termination or adoption order should be filed within six months of the order’s signature—not discovery—even when the challenger alleges lack of notice, UCCJEA defects, or a void judgment. In the Seventh Court of Appeals, the deadline is jurisdictional, may be raised for the first time on appeal, and overrides the ordinary four-year bill-of-review period. Counsel should investigate interstate proceedings immediately, analyze termination and adoption jurisdiction separately, and preserve every available avenue of review before the six-month deadline expires."
In the Interest of C.Q.-G.D., a Child
COA11
In a private termination and stepparent-adoption case, the father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination and the trial court’s refusal to let him attend the final hearing remotely. The Eleventh Court of Appeals concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(F): during a qualifying one-year period, the father provided no financial support despite evidence relevant to his ability to contribute. His knowledge of the child, access to the mother’s contact information, total lack of contact or support, and failure to pursue a parental relationship also supported the best-interest finding. Because one predicate ground plus best interest was sufficient, the court did not need to uphold every alternative termination ground. It further held that requiring in-person attendance for testimony, cross-examination, and credibility determinations was not reversible error, particularly where the father’s request lacked proper verification. The court affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"A subsection (F) termination case requires more than proof of zero payments: counsel should identify the precise statutory one-year period and present evidence connecting the parent’s employment, income, resources, and other circumstances to an ability to provide at least some support. Responding parents should document any inability to pay, in-kind contributions, attempted payments, and efforts to maintain contact. Parties requesting remote participation in a contested final hearing should apply early, submit properly verified supporting evidence, and propose workable procedures for testimony, exhibits, cross-examination, and credibility assessment."
In the Guardianship of Addison Kay Bayouth, an Incapacitated Person
COA11
A father who was seeking to reduce the support he paid for his incapacitated adult daughter also applied to become guardian of her estate. The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that the support dispute gave him an interest adverse to his daughter under Texas Estates Code § 1055.001(b)(1), even though the payments were made to the mother and the father might otherwise qualify for a Social Security credit under Texas Family Code § 154.132. Because the disputed child support and derivative Social Security benefits were the daughter’s principal financial resources, the father lacked statutory standing to seek control of her estate. The court affirmed dismissal of the guardianship application and upheld the attorney’s-fee award based on the trial court’s finding that the application was brought in bad faith and without just cause.
Litigation Takeaway
"A parent seeking to reduce, offset, or redirect support for an incapacitated adult child may be disqualified from seeking guardianship over that child’s estate because the requested financial relief creates an adverse interest. Before pursuing parallel support and guardianship proceedings, counsel should assess standing, investigate less restrictive alternatives such as a special-needs trust or ABLE account, and recognize that an inadequately supported guardianship filing may result in dismissal and attorney’s fees."
Simpson v. Artillery Construction, LLC
COA14
After a homeowner obtained a limited arbitration award against a construction company but not its owner, she sought vacatur based on the arbitrator’s undisclosed political commentary, prior campaigns, social-media activity, and possible plans to seek office. Applying the Texas Arbitration Act’s extraordinarily narrow review standards, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that evident partiality requires undisclosed facts that would give an objective observer a reasonable impression of bias, ordinarily through a meaningful connection to the parties, counsel, witnesses, financial interests, or dispute. Because the political information had no demonstrated case-specific nexus, and because the record did not show that the arbitrator exceeded her authority, the court rejected vacatur. It also held that public policy is not an independent ground for vacatur and that the TAA does not categorically require disclosure of an intent to run for office. The court affirmed confirmation of the arbitration award.
Litigation Takeaway
"Vet arbitrators and request supplemental disclosures before the hearing; an unfavorable award cannot be vacated merely because the arbitrator holds political views or has electoral ambitions. A party alleging evident partiality must timely present admissible evidence connecting the undisclosed information to a participant, financial interest, or issue in the case. Counsel should also define the arbitrator’s authority precisely in the written submission and preserve any family-law-specific best-interest review separately from a TAA vacatur challenge."
Randy Charles McMullen v. Mindy Louise Huffman
COA02
In a post-divorce suit under Texas Family Code § 9.001, Randy McMullen sought to appeal orders denying his special appearance, issuing a capias, and partially enforcing the divorce decree’s property division. The Second Court of Appeals held that the property-enforcement order was interlocutory because it expressly reserved contempt, punishment, reimbursement, and other alleged violations for later determination. Because no final judgment existed, the special-appearance and capias orders had not merged into an appealable judgment. The court further concluded that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(7) expressly bars an interlocutory appeal from a special-appearance ruling in a Family Code suit and that a capias order is not independently appealable. It dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not assume that a special-appearance ruling in a Texas family-law case is immediately appealable: § 51.014(a)(7) excludes Family Code suits. Before appealing an enforcement order, confirm that it resolves every pleaded claim and remedy—including contempt, punishment, reimbursement, and related violations—and contains clear finality language. A partial enforcement order does not cause earlier interlocutory orders to merge, and a capias order is not directly appealable; depending on the circumstances, mandamus or habeas relief may need to be evaluated."