Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
In the Interest of L.Q.-W., L.W., and L.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of a mother’s parental rights after evidence showed she attempted suicide by ingesting antifreeze and alcohol while she was the sole caregiver for three very young children. The court held that this incident, combined with her untreated mental-health issues, failure to complete services, minimal visitation, and failure to appear at trial, was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court also upheld the best-interest finding and affirmed denial of placement with the children’s grandfather because the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that his home was not a safe relative placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A mental-health crisis can support an endangerment finding when the evidence ties the episode to immediate danger to the children, especially where the parent is the only available caregiver. Relative placement is never automatic—family members must prove their home is presently safe, and preservation and briefing defects can sink appellate complaints."
Larry Franklin v. The State of Texas
COA02
In Franklin v. State, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed revocation of Larry Franklin’s community supervision for stalking and protective-order violations after rejecting his complaint that the trial court should have continued the revocation hearing. Franklin orally asked for “a continuance or a reset,” arguing he had Fifth Amendment concerns and was not in agreement with counsel, but he did not file a written, sworn motion. The court held that under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 29.03 and 29.08, a continuance request must be written and verified, and an oral request preserves nothing for appellate review. The court further held that labeling the request as a due-process, right-to-counsel, or Fifth Amendment issue did not create an exception to those preservation requirements. The court also noted the record showed counsel had met with Franklin repeatedly and that Franklin failed to show specific prejudice from proceeding. The revocation judgments were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you need a continuance in a procedurally sensitive case—especially one involving protective orders, contempt, enforcement, or overlapping criminal exposure—do not rely on an oral request. Put the motion in writing, verify it when required, and make a concrete record of specific prejudice; constitutional buzzwords will not rescue a defective continuance request on appeal."
In the Interest of M.A. Jr. and N.A., Children
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals held that Family Code section 161.001(f) requires more than a boilerplate finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to return children to their parents before termination. Although the court reviewed and largely upheld the underlying termination-related findings on endangerment and best interest, it distinguished between evidentiary sufficiency and statutory compliance in the written order. Because the termination order contained only a conclusory reasonable-efforts recital and did not specifically state what reunification efforts the Department made, the order failed to satisfy the statute. The court therefore affirmed the remaining supported findings in part, but reversed and remanded in part for entry of a statutorily compliant order.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a statute requires specific findings, generic order language is not enough. In termination cases and beyond, family-law practitioners should draft and review final orders line by line to ensure the judgment itself contains the particularized findings the statute requires, because a defective order can create reversible error even if the evidence otherwise supports the result."
Rullman v. Rullman
COA02
In Rullman v. Rullman, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a Tarrant County divorce because neither spouse satisfied Texas Family Code § 6.301 when suit was filed. The dispute centered on whether the wife’s stays at a Fort Worth house owned by the parties amounted to Texas domicile for six months and Tarrant County residence for ninety days, despite the couple’s longstanding life in Colorado and evidence that her time in Texas was intermittent, temporary, and tied to marital turmoil and travel. Applying settled law that domicile requires both physical presence and intent to make Texas a fixed and permanent home, and that county residence likewise requires actual living in the county with good-faith intent to remain, the court deferred to the trial court’s fact findings. It held that ownership of Texas property, repeated stays, and family connections were not enough to prove the required intent or continuity, so dismissal of the divorce action was proper.
Litigation Takeaway
"Treat Family Code § 6.301 as a threshold proof issue, not a pleading formality: before filing in Texas, confirm the full six-month domicile and ninety-day county residence periods with objective evidence showing an actual, permanent move, because temporary stays, second homes, and frequent travel can get a divorce case dismissed after significant litigation."
In the Interest of J.M.H., a Child
COA06
Mother and Stepfather sought to terminate Father’s parental rights so Stepfather could adopt the child after Father was convicted of ten felony counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to consecutive prison terms. The Texarkana Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(P) because Father knowingly engaged in criminal conduct, was imprisoned as a result, and official TDCJ records showed he would remain confined for well over two years from the petition’s filing date. The court rejected Father’s testimony about possible earlier release as speculative and also found the record showed he had no adequate care arrangement for the child during incarceration. The same evidence—along with the child’s stable home with Mother and Stepfather, Father’s lack of support and limited contact, and Stepfather’s intent to adopt—supported the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2).
Litigation Takeaway
"In imprisonment-ground termination cases, the conviction alone is not enough: build the record with the petition filing date, prison records, parole and release evidence, and proof the incarcerated parent has no concrete care plan for the child. For the defending parent, speculative parole testimony will usually fail unless backed by records and a realistic caregiving arrangement."
Kamel v. Zacharko
COA05
In Kamel v. Zacharko, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a one-year protective order under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 7B.003 after finding sufficient evidence that the respondent stalked his former dating partner. The record showed a continuing course of unwanted electronic conduct after the relationship ended, including repeated texts at odd hours, dozens of rapid-fire messages, threats to disclose intimate information and alleged photos or videos to the applicant’s family and children, direct messages to the applicant’s minor child about personal matters, and a false HIV message intended to alarm her. The court distinguished an earlier appeal involving a dissolved temporary injunction under Rule 683, explaining that Chapter 7B protective-order relief is a separate statutory remedy. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard and Penal Code section 42.072’s stalking elements, the court held the trial court had reasonable grounds to believe stalking occurred and that the final protective order was properly issued. It also rejected procedural complaints about the temporary ex parte order because the final hearing cured those issues and the evidence independently supported the final order.
Litigation Takeaway
"When post-breakup conduct consists of repeated unwanted digital contact, threats to expose intimate information, or alarming communications involving children, family lawyers should evaluate Chapter 7B stalking-based protective-order relief instead of relying only on temporary-injunction practice. Build the record around the statutory stalking elements: a course of conduct, the applicant’s actual reaction, the objective reasonable-person standard, and why future conduct is likely without court intervention."
In the Interest of G.W. and M.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals dismissed Mother’s appeal from an order terminating her rights to only two of three children in a pending SAPCR. Applying Lehmann finality principles, the court examined the live pleadings and record, noted that claims involving the third child and that child’s father remained pending, and found no severance, abandonment, or clear finality language. Because the order resolved fewer than all parties and claims and was not independently appealable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a), the court held the order was interlocutory and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In multi-child or multi-party family cases, do not assume a major ruling is immediately appealable. Before filing a notice of appeal, confirm that every party and claim has been disposed of, or obtain a severance or clear abandonment; otherwise the appeal may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."
Wilcox v. Duran
COA02
In Wilcox v. Duran, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals considered whether two counterclaims arising from a bitter custody-related dispute—abuse of process and a claim based on allegedly false police reports—could be dismissed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The court first held the TCPA motion was timely because the counterclaims were newly added by amended pleading and contained different elements, creating a new 60-day deadline under Montelongo. But on the merits, the court held the movant failed to meet the TCPA’s threshold burden to show the claims were based on, related to, or in response to protected petitioning or free speech. The court focused on the gravamen of the claims: misuse of legal process and knowingly false reporting, not protected advocacy itself. Because simply characterizing litigation conduct or police communications as protected activity was not enough, the court affirmed denial of TCPA dismissal.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law-related tort fights, do not assume the TCPA automatically applies just because the alleged misconduct involved court filings, procedural tools, or police reports. Courts will look at the gravamen of the claim, and allegations of abuse of process or knowingly false reporting may fall outside Chapter 27 altogether. For movants, win step one with a precise statutory fit before arguing evidence; for nonmovants, frame the claim around wrongful misuse or falsity rather than protected communications."
Perry v. State
COA01
In Perry v. State, the defendant argued the trial court improperly admitted a mother’s outcry testimony about abuse acts different from the oral-sex allegation charged in the indictment. The court did not decide whether the outcry ruling was actually wrong; instead, it assumed error and focused on harm under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). Because the complainant herself later testified without objection to the same and more extensive abuse, the challenged testimony was cumulative and could not have affected the verdict except slightly. The court also upheld admission of forensic interview excerpts after defense opening statement suggested no disclosure had occurred, reasoning the evidence was admissible to correct a misleading impression. The conviction was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Winning an evidentiary objection is not enough to win an appeal if the same facts come in elsewhere without objection. In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, lawyers must preserve objections across the whole record and be careful in opening statement, because broad claims about "no disclosure" can open the door to otherwise disputed interview or outcry evidence."
In the Interest of B.K.M. and J.J.M.S., Minor Children
COA08
In In re B.K.M., the father filed a modification suit after a prior child-support order naming the maternal grandmother as sole managing conservator was declared void. He sought to recover alleged support overpayments and damages tied to that void order, but the court held that a modification case under the Texas Family Code is limited to changing conservatorship, possession, and support prospectively, not awarding reimbursement or damages for payments made under prior orders unless a separate, properly pleaded cognizable claim supports that relief. The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to award overpayment reimbursement, and it also upheld the modification order addressing current conservatorship, possession, and child support based on best-interest evidence, the children’s in-camera interview, and the father’s incomplete income proof.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pick the right procedural vehicle and plead the right remedy. A Texas modification suit can fix conservatorship, possession, and support going forward, and may allow arrears recalculation, but it is not a catch-all way to claw back prior child-support payments or seek damages from a void order without an independent, properly pleaded claim."