Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
Strategy Category
358 opinions found
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
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."
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 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 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 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."
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 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."
Nadar v. Nadar
COA05
In Nadar v. Nadar, a divorce decree contained a "legal impossibility": the wife was ordered to vacate the marital home five days before the judge actually signed the final decree. Six years later, the wife remained in the home, leading the husband to seek a clarification order to set a new move-out date. The wife argued the court lacked jurisdiction to change the "unambiguous" original order. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s clarification. The court held that under Texas Family Code § 9.008, a court may clarify a decree that is not "specific enough to be enforced by contempt." Because a deadline that passes before an order is signed is unenforceable by contempt, the trial court had the authority to set a new, prospective deadline to effectuate the original property division.
Litigation Takeaway
"When drafting divorce decrees, always use relative deadlines (e.g., "30 days after the decree is signed") rather than fixed calendar dates to account for administrative delays. If a decree becomes unenforceable due to "impossible" dates, a petition for clarification—not a motion for substantive modification—is the correct legal vehicle to reset performance windows."
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."
Lamas v. The State of Texas
COA07
In Lamas v. State, the appellant attempted to appeal his conviction for sexual assault of a child nearly four years after his 2022 sentencing. The Seventh Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)(1), which requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of sentencing (or 90 days if a motion for new trial is filed). Because the appellant missed this mandatory deadline by several years, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal. Following the precedent in Castillo v. State, the court held that a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional necessity, and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family law practitioners, this case confirms that an untimely criminal appeal does not stop a conviction from being considered 'final' for parental termination purposes. If a parent files a late notice of appeal years after the fact to delay termination proceedings, that filing is a jurisdictional nullity and should not prevent the court from proceeding with the 'Best Interest' phase of the case."