Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1102 opinions found
In the Interest of N.H.S. and H.A.F., Children
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). Mother challenged only best interest on appeal, so the court focused on the Holley factors and section 263.307 considerations, relying on evidence of repeated abuse allegations, prior CPS “reason to believe” findings, the children’s fear of Mother, self-harm and trauma tied to that fear, unsafe and unsanitary home conditions, medication noncompliance, positive drug tests during the case, and the children’s improvement in foster care. Although Mother completed some services and her related criminal charge was dismissed after pretrial intervention, the court held that favorable evidence did not outweigh the broader pattern of danger, instability, and emotional harm, and it affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Best-interest cases are won on a layered record, not a single bad incident. Evidence of abuse history, child fear, trauma symptoms, mental-health noncompliance, unsafe home conditions, and the child’s improvement in a stable placement can collectively support strong best-interest findings, while partial rehabilitation or service completion may not overcome a record showing ongoing danger and instability."
Ortiz v. Nelapatla
SCOTX
In Ortiz v. Nelapatla, the Texas Supreme Court decided whether a partial counteraffidavit under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 18.001 defeats an entire medical-expense affidavit or only the portions actually challenged. Ortiz submitted affidavits from three medical providers to prove past medical expenses, but Nelapatla’s counteraffidavits disputed only specific portions of two providers’ bills. The trial court nevertheless excluded those two provider affidavits in full absent live expert testimony, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court analyzed the text of § 18.001, especially its allowance for controverting “all or part” of an affidavit, and held that the statute does not impose an all-or-nothing result. Unchallenged portions of a compliant medical-expense affidavit remain competent evidence of reasonableness and necessity and may go to the factfinder without live expert testimony. Because the lower courts excluded the affidavits too broadly, the Court reversed and remanded.
Litigation Takeaway
"A targeted challenge only creates a targeted evidentiary problem. If the other side’s § 18.001 counteraffidavit attacks only certain medical charges, the remaining unchallenged charges should still be admissible without live expert proof. In family-law cases involving uninsured medical expenses, therapy bills, counseling costs, or medical-needs evidence, lawyers should separate disputed from undisputed charges and press for admission of the uncontested portion."
K.C. v. D.R.
COA02
In K.C. v. D.R., the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed a protective order entered against a father’s romantic partner after the child’s mother alleged threatening conduct, including an encounter involving a ski mask and baseball bat during a custody-related dispute. The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or misapplied Family Code Chapter 71, explaining that Section 71.0021 can cover violence or threats directed at a person because of that person’s dating relationship with a shared third party; the applicant and respondent do not have to have dated each other. The court also rejected complaints about due process, evidentiary rulings, defensive theories, and overbreadth because they were inadequately preserved, inadequately briefed, or unsupported by accurate authority and record citations. The court ultimately held that the protective order was properly issued and emphasized that pro se litigants must comply with the same appellate briefing and preservation rules as attorneys.
Litigation Takeaway
"Chapter 71 protective orders can reach threats by a parent’s current partner against the other parent even when those two people never dated each other, so long as the conduct fits the statute’s third-party dating-violence language. For litigators, the bigger lesson is procedural: preserve every complaint, tie it to the record and the statute, and brief it accurately—Texas appellate courts will not rescue unsupported or sloppy arguments, even from pro se parties."
In the Interest of K.L.G., K.L.G., K.A.R.G., and K.L.G., Children
COA13
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Father’s parental rights and refused to delete the trial court’s endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). Father did not challenge the separate subsection (N) predicate ground or the best-interest finding, so termination stood regardless, but the court still reviewed the challenged endangerment findings because of their collateral consequences. The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient because the record showed severe abuse and neglect of the children, and Father’s own statements showed he knew for months that Mother and her boyfriend were abusing and neglecting the children yet failed to take effective protective action. That knowledge-plus-inaction supported both environmental endangerment under subsection (D) and endangering conduct under subsection (E).
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases, a parent cannot avoid endangerment findings simply by saying, “I wasn’t the abuser.” If the evidence shows the parent knew the children were being abused or neglected and still left them in that environment without meaningful intervention, courts can uphold subsection (D) and (E) findings—with serious future consequences for custody, conservatorship, and later termination litigation."
In the Interest of M.H.E., a Child
COA02
In a pending SAPCR, Mother tried to appeal a trial court order requiring mediation and dispute resolution. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals analyzed whether the order was appealable under Texas jurisdictional rules, explaining that direct appeals generally lie only from final judgments or from interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Because the mediation order did not dispose of all parties and claims, the SAPCR remained pending, and no statute authorized an interlocutory appeal from this type of case-management order, the court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Litigation Takeaway
"Don’t assume an unfavorable family-law procedure order can be appealed right away. Mediation and other case-management orders are usually not appealable unless they are part of a final judgment or a statute expressly allows interlocutory review; if immediate relief is necessary, mandamus—not direct appeal—is often the proper vehicle."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Jesus Gregorio Lopez and Isela Flores Richardson
COA13
In this divorce appeal, the wife argued she lacked notice that a May 7 hearing would serve as the final trial and complained that the court ruled on disputed property issues without live testimony, based instead on attorney proffer and documents. The Thirteenth Court rejected those arguments because the record showed the case was orally set for trial on May 7, wife’s counsel acknowledged that understanding at the hearing, and the parties expressly agreed to proceed by proffer with documentary review. The court also found no reversible error regarding alleged post-hearing exhibits, a late-filed amended pleading, relief awarded in the decree, or findings and conclusions, and it affirmed the divorce decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you agree on the record to try a divorce case by proffer, stipulation, and documents, you usually cannot wait until the judge seems unconvinced and then demand a full evidentiary hearing. Family-law lawyers should clarify whether a setting is final, object clearly to any late amendments or procedure they oppose, and preserve the record before agreeing to an informal trial format."
In the Interest of Baby Boy T; In the Interest of L.B., S.B., and B.B.
COA10
The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights after an independent Anders review found no nonfrivolous appellate issues. The court nevertheless specifically analyzed Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) under In re N.G., relying on evidence of severe abuse in the home, the father’s failure to accept responsibility, unresolved safety concerns despite service completion, and the absence of any therapeutic support for reunification. The court also held that appointed counsel in a parental-rights appeal may not withdraw merely because an Anders brief was filed; under In re P.M., counsel must show independent good cause to withdraw.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas termination appeals, endangerment findings under subsections (D) and (E) will get specific appellate review even in an Anders case, so trial counsel must build a record on abuse, exposure, accountability, and actual remediation—not just service completion. Appointed appellate counsel should also expect to remain on the case through any petition-for-review stage unless they can show good cause beyond filing an Anders brief."
Khandria v. Al-Muslim
COA14
In Khandria v. Al-Muslim, the father sought to modify a prior SAPCR/divorce decree that gave him no specific possession or access, arguing the original decree effectively gave the mother unchecked control and that circumstances had materially changed because she was now somewhat open to reunification. The Fourteenth Court first held that this argument was an improper collateral attack on the original decree: any defect in the decree was non-jurisdictional, making the decree at most voidable and subject to direct appeal, not later repair through modification. On the merits, the court held the evidence did not require findings of a material and substantial change or present best interest under Family Code section 156.101. The mother’s testimony showed only cautious, therapy-based openness while continuing to express concerns about the child’s loss of trust, and the father’s reluctance to commit to therapeutic recommendations undercut his request for immediate access. The court also affirmed denial of the father’s request to reduce child support because the record showed assets and earning capacity despite his claimed setbacks.
Litigation Takeaway
"A modification case is not a do-over for errors in the original decree. If the real complaint is that the prior order was legally defective, that issue usually must be raised by direct appeal. And in access-modification cases, vague evidence that a parent’s attitude has softened is not enough—lawyers need concrete proof of post-decree change and a child-centered reunification plan, especially when the relationship has been fractured for years."
In the Interest of C.F., a Child
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights, concluding legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(2). The court relied on evidence that the parents used methamphetamine while caring for the infant, the child himself tested positive for methamphetamine, there were domestic-violence concerns, the home environment was unstable and unsafe, and the father later violated community supervision, was incarcerated, failed to complete services, and offered only a speculative post-release plan. Applying the Holley best-interest framework and sufficiency standards, the court held the trial court could reasonably infer ongoing danger and lack of stability from the father’s past and present conduct.
Litigation Takeaway
"Courts give heavy weight to concrete evidence of child endangerment—especially drug exposure, domestic violence, criminal instability, unsafe housing, and failure to complete services—and they may use past conduct to predict future risk. In any custody or termination case, promises of future improvement usually will not overcome a documented record of recent instability unless backed by credible, verifiable proof of rehabilitation, housing, employment, and safety."
Travarius Leon Dent v. The State of Texas
COA13
In Dent, the court affirmed admission of the father’s prior injury-to-a-child deferred-adjudication evidence after he testified that he was a strict but not physically abusive parent and suggested the child fabricated sexual-abuse allegations in retaliation for discipline. The court held that this testimony opened the door by creating a false impression about his parenting and made the prior child-injury evidence relevant for non-propensity purposes: rebutting that impression and undermining his retaliation/fabrication defense. The court also held that the evidence’s probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403, because the State had a real need for rebuttal evidence tailored to the defense theme, and the limiting instruction properly restricted the jury’s use of the evidence without commenting on the weight of the evidence.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, a parent who claims to be merely “strict” and blames allegations on retaliation or coaching may open the door to prior abuse evidence. Frame the evidence as rebuttal of a false parenting narrative and fabrication defense—not just bad-character proof—and seek a careful limiting instruction."