Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1102 opinions found
L. G. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In L. G. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the Austin Court of Appeals held that under the 2023 amendments to Texas Family Code § 161.001, a DFPS-filed termination case requires more than proof of a predicate ground and best interest: the trial court must also make a separate written finding, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that DFPS made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent. The court examined the decree and the record, which showed DFPS created a tailored service plan, referred and paid for services, arranged individual and family therapy, maintained contact, provided visitation, and pursued relative placement with reunification in mind. Rejecting the mother’s argument that the efforts were not reasonable, the court emphasized that the statute requires reasonable efforts, not successful reunification, and deferred to the trial court’s adverse credibility finding against the mother. The court held the written findings were sufficiently specific and that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the reasonable-efforts finding, so it affirmed the termination decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If reunification efforts matter, build and document them with specificity. For DFPS and child’s counsel, L.G. shows that a detailed service plan, therapy referrals, payment for services, visitation, contact logs, and relative-placement efforts can satisfy § 161.001(f). For parent-side counsel, broad complaints about unfair services are not enough—challenge the fit, accessibility, timing, and execution of the services in real time and preserve those issues in the trial court."
In the Interest of K.A.B., a Child
COA05
In this SAPCR modification appeal, the mother argued the trial court violated due process by enforcing equal one-hour time limits that prevented her from fully testifying and offering additional exhibits. The Dallas Court of Appeals held that trial courts have broad discretion to impose reasonable, evenhanded trial limits, and the record showed the limits were applied equally, the mother was warned as her time expired, and she chose to spend her allotted time on cross-examination rather than her own affirmative proof. The court also emphasized preservation: the mother did not timely object to the time limits, did not make an offer of proof showing what excluded testimony or exhibits would have established, and did not preserve hearsay complaints by contemporaneous objection. Because the complaints were waived or inadequately briefed, and no abuse of discretion appeared on the record, the court affirmed the modification order.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a family court imposes trial time limits, object early, explain specifically why more time is needed, and make an offer of proof for any excluded testimony or exhibits. On appeal, preservation usually matters more than generalized fairness complaints."
In the Interest of G.M.M., a Child
COA07
In In re G.M.M., the father asked to reduce his child support based on reduced income, travel expenses, and responsibility for another child, but the record contained no evidence comparing his financial circumstances at the time of the prior order with his circumstances at the modification hearing and no evidence allowing the trial court to recalculate support under current guidelines. The Amarillo Court of Appeals applied Texas Family Code section 156.401 and abuse-of-discretion review, emphasizing that attorney argument, opening statements, and unsupported assertions are not evidence. Because the father failed to prove either a material and substantial change or a guideline-based 20%/$100 variance, and the record also reflected no objection when counsel stated child support would not be modified, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by leaving support unchanged.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to modify child support, prove it with admissible financial evidence. A movant must show either a material and substantial change since the last order or enough current financial data for a guideline recalculation under Family Code 156.401; fairness arguments, travel-cost complaints, and unsworn claims about lower income or other children will not carry the issue."
In the Interest of R.G. III, a Child
COA02
In In re R.G. III, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and sufficient to support best interest under § 161.001(b)(2). The court analyzed the case as a pattern-endangerment record: the father repeatedly used methamphetamine, committed domestic violence, had a history of criminal instability and incarceration, and knowingly left the child with the mother despite knowing of her repeated methamphetamine relapses. The court also emphasized the dangerous living conditions surrounding the child, including motel living, lack of school enrollment, poor supervision, and the child’s own positive methamphetamine test. Rejecting the father’s minimization and alternative explanations, the court held that the combined evidence showed both endangering surroundings and endangering conduct, and that the same proof also established termination was in the child’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas courts will treat substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal instability, educational neglect, and failure to protect from a known drug-using parent as a unified endangerment pattern. For litigators, the lesson is to build or rebut the case through cumulative proof of knowledge, relapse history, protective failures, and the child’s concrete exposure to danger—not isolated incidents or last-minute claims of improvement."
Falah Algaissi v. Taima Abu Qamer
COA02
In Algaissi v. Abu Qamer, the husband appealed a final divorce decree, challenging conservatorship, property division, and fraud findings. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that his challenges failed for two independent reasons: he did not timely secure the reporter’s record, so the court presumed the evidence supported the trial court’s rulings, and he personally signed the decree as “approved and consented to as to both form and substance,” which made the decree an agreed judgment. Applying invited-error and agreed-judgment principles, the court concluded he could not attack the very provisions he had consented to absent proof that his consent was not genuine. The decree was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not treat decree signature language as boilerplate. If a client may appeal, avoid signing a divorce decree as approved or consented to as to both form and substance, because that can waive challenges to custody, property, and fraud rulings. Also, timely secure the reporter’s record—without it, most family-law abuse-of-discretion complaints are effectively lost."
Patrick McNeal v. The State of Texas
COA05
In McNeal v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant who pleaded guilty under a plea bargain could pursue an appeal after receiving the exact agreed sentence. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2), the court treated the case as a restricted plea-bargain appeal and examined whether any exception allowed review. The record showed no written pretrial motion ruled on before trial, no trial-court permission to appeal, and no statutory authorization for the appeal. Because the trial court’s certification stated McNeal had no right of appeal and the record supported that certification, Rule 25.2(d) required dismissal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction without reaching the merits.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a related criminal case resolves through a negotiated plea and the defendant receives the bargained-for sentence, an appeal may be barred unless counsel preserved a written pretrial issue, obtained permission to appeal, or fits within a statute authorizing review. For family-law cases involving family violence or other criminal overlap, do not build strategy around the assumption that a later criminal appeal will undo the collateral effects of the plea."
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."
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."
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."
Jonathan Edward Norton v. The State of Texas
COA10
In Norton v. State, the appellant challenged a six-year prison sentence imposed after revocation of community supervision as grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment and article I, section 13 of the Texas Constitution. The Tenth Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because Norton never objected when sentence was pronounced and never raised the constitutional complaint in a motion for new trial or other post-trial filing. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a)(1) and preservation authorities, the court held that constitutional disproportionality complaints are waived unless timely and specifically presented to the trial court. The revocation judgment and sentence were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you believe a ruling or punishment is constitutionally excessive, say so in the trial court—clearly, specifically, and on the record. Norton is a preservation case: even serious constitutional complaints, including disproportionality, due-process, or punitive-sanctions arguments, can be lost on appeal if counsel does not object at the hearing and, when appropriate, re-urge the issue in a post-judgment motion."