Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1102 opinions found
Hazlett v. Hazlett
COA05
In Hazlett v. Hazlett, the Dallas Court of Appeals considered whether a default divorce decree awarding a disproportionate share of the community estate could stand when the prove-up record contained little competent evidence of asset values. The wife testified that it was 'reasonable to assume' the husband’s 401(k) had 'around $20,000 or more' and gave only a conclusory estimate that the marital home had 'a little shy of $8,000 in equity' after subtracting the mortgage and reimbursement amounts. Applying Family Code § 7.001 and default-divorce proof requirements, the court held that a trial court must still have sufficient, non-speculative valuation evidence to make a just-and-right division, even when the other spouse does not answer or appear. Because the testimony about the 401(k) was speculative and the home-equity testimony was conclusory and unsupported, the evidence was legally insufficient to support the property division and debt allocation. The court affirmed the divorce, but reversed and remanded the property and debt portions of the decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"A default divorce does not excuse proof. If you want a disproportionate property division, you must present competent valuation evidence for major assets, debts, and any reimbursement claims; guesses, assumptions, and bare equity numbers can undo the economic terms of an otherwise final decree on appeal."
In the Interest of A.V. and B.L., Children
COA11
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights because the judgment was based on an unrevoked affidavit of voluntary relinquishment that complied with Texas Family Code section 161.103. Applying section 161.211(c), the court held appellate review was limited to whether the affidavit was procured by fraud, duress, or coercion. The affidavit was prima facie valid, and the mother’s pro se claims of fear, pressure, and false hope were unsupported by any developed evidentiary record, including the absence of a motion for new trial. Because she failed to prove fraud, duress, or coercion by a preponderance of the evidence, the court found no nonfrivolous appellate issue, affirmed the termination order, and denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw as premature under In re P.M.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a termination order rests on a section 161.103-compliant, unrevoked relinquishment affidavit, appellate options narrow dramatically. If a party wants to undo the affidavit, counsel must build a trial-court record with specific evidence of fraud, duress, or coercion; regret, generalized pressure, or unsupported allegations will not suffice on appeal."
Dorsett v. State
COA05
In Dorsett v. State, the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld convictions for injury to a disabled individual and injury to a child under Penal Code § 22.04, rejecting arguments that conflicting and uncertain witness testimony made the evidence legally insufficient. The court applied Jackson v. Virginia and deferred to the trial court’s role as factfinder, holding that direct testimony from the victims and another child witness, combined with corroborating physical evidence, officer observations, and medical-style testimony about the injuries, allowed a rational factfinder to find bodily injury and identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The court further held that the existence of a custody dispute and inconsistencies in details did not negate otherwise probative abuse evidence when the record was viewed cumulatively and in the light most favorable to the verdict.
Litigation Takeaway
"In abuse-related family-law cases, inconsistency alone rarely defeats a claim. Trial courts may credit imperfect testimony when it is supported by photos, injuries, third-party observations, physical conditions in the home, timelines, or other corroborating evidence, and a custody-dispute motive defense will not overcome a well-built cumulative record by itself."
Skidmore v. Skidmore
COA14
In Skidmore v. Skidmore, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a final divorce decree because the husband failed to preserve most of his appellate complaints and inadequately briefed others. He challenged witness exclusion, admission of allegedly unconstitutional evidence, property characterization, child-support calculations, credibility determinations, and cumulative error. The court analyzed the appeal primarily under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 33.1 and 38.1, emphasizing that appellate complaints must be timely and specifically raised in the trial court, must match the complaint made on appeal, and must be supported by record citations and legal authority. Because the record did not show preserved objections or developed briefing—and one no-evidence issue attacked a finding not contained in the decree—the court declined to reach most merits issues and affirmed the decree in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"Family-law appeals are usually won or lost in the trial court record. If you want to complain on appeal about excluded witnesses, admitted evidence, property characterization, or child-support calculations, you must make a timely, specific objection, obtain a ruling, make an offer of proof when needed, and then brief the issue with precise record citations and authority. Otherwise, even potentially strong complaints will be waived."
Rogers v. State
COA14
In Rogers v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed admission of extensive prior abuse evidence in an injury-to-a-child prosecution against a mother. The court held that repeated prior acts against the same children were highly probative of intent, state of mind, credibility, and the nature of the parent-child relationship under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.37 and 38.371, and that Rule 403 did not require exclusion because the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or cumulativeness. The court also held that after the mother blurted out in front of the jury that her daughter was lying, the State could introduce the daughter’s earlier forensic-interview statement as a prior consistent statement to rebut the accusation of fabrication.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, prior incidents within the same family relationship can be powerful context evidence when tied to endangerment, intent, credibility, or the parent-child dynamic, and generic Rule 403 objections usually will not be enough to keep them out. Lawyers should also be careful when accusing a child or other witness of fabrication, because that attack may open the door to otherwise inadmissible prior consistent statements."
In the Interest of G.H., a Child
COA02
In In re G.H., the Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of parental rights after the Department proved both predicate grounds and the additional Family Code section 161.001(f)(1) requirement that, despite reasonable reunification efforts, a continuing danger in the home prevented the child’s return. The court focused on present, unresolved risk—not just past misconduct—and held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient where the parents continued using marijuana, missed drug tests, refused substance-abuse services, visited inconsistently, failed to remedy unsafe housing that included a convicted child sex offender, and showed ongoing instability. The court also held the same evidence, along with the child’s stability and bonding in foster placement, supported the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"Courts want proof that danger has actually been fixed, not merely explained away. In termination and other custody-related cases, partial compliance, a few clean tests, or promises to improve will not overcome evidence of ongoing substance use, missed testing, unsafe household members, unstable living conditions, and inconsistent contact with the child."
Hoisington v. State
COA11
In Hoisington v. State, the Eastland Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient to support convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by exposure. The defendant argued the proof failed because there was no DNA evidence, no recovered pornography, and no conclusive forensic findings. Applying Jackson v. Virginia, the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and deferred to the jury’s credibility determinations. The child complainant gave age-appropriate, internally consistent testimony describing exposure, sexual contact, oral contact, and digital penetration that tracked the statutory elements. Her account was reinforced by consistent disclosures to a SANE nurse and forensic interviewer, medical findings consistent with her description, and corroboration of a specific detail about a pink sex toy. The court held that a child complainant’s testimony alone can sustain the findings if believed, and the absence of DNA or other definitive forensic proof did not render the evidence insufficient.
Litigation Takeaway
"In abuse-driven family cases, do not let the case rise or fall on DNA or conclusive physical proof. A child’s specific, developmentally appropriate, and consistent disclosures—especially when supported by outcry, forensic interview, medical evidence, or corroborating details—can be enough to justify protective relief, while credibility attacks must focus on real inconsistencies or contamination concerns rather than generic claims of “no forensic evidence.”"
In the Matter of B.F.P.
COA11
In In the Matter of B.F.P., the Eastland Court of Appeals dismissed a juvenile appeal for want of jurisdiction because Texas Family Code section 56.01 allows an appeal from a disposition-modification order only if it is filed by or on behalf of the child. After the juvenile court modified B.F.P.’s disposition and placed her with her paternal grandfather, two adults filed a pro se notice of appeal alleging notice and due-process defects. But B.F.P.’s attorney informed the court that B.F.P. did not want to appeal and that the adults’ objectives conflicted with hers. Relying on the text of section 56.01 and prior juvenile cases, the court held that a parent or other adult cannot create appellate jurisdiction when the child, through counsel, does not desire an appeal. The adults’ later amended notice purporting to proceed on the child’s behalf was also ineffective, so the appeal was dismissed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Identify who actually owns the right to appeal before filing. When a statute makes appellate rights personal to the child, parents or other relatives cannot invoke appellate jurisdiction in their own names or override the child’s contrary position through counsel, even by framing the complaint as a due-process or voidness challenge."
Robert v. State
COA10
In Robert v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals held that a defendant accused of continuous sexual abuse of a child could not cross-examine the child complainant about an earlier accusation against her grandfather without first proving that earlier accusation was false. The defendant argued the prior allegation supported his theory that the child fabricated abuse claims when she got in trouble over cell-phone use, but the court applied Lopez v. State and concluded that suspicion, timing arguments, delayed reporting, omissions, and a good-faith belief in falsity do not satisfy the threshold requirement of proof of falsity. Because the prior accusation was not shown to be false, it was not probative impeachment evidence, and the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding it. The court also held that the defendant failed to preserve a separate Rule 613(b) complaint because that theory was not presented to the trial court.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to use a prior abuse allegation to show bias, fabrication, or motive in a family-law case, you need actual proof that the earlier allegation was false—not just inconsistencies, delay, or suspicion. Preserve every admissibility theory separately and be prepared to build the foundation outside the factfinder’s presence."
Rogers v. State
COA14
In Rogers v. State, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals upheld admission of extensive prior-abuse evidence in a child-injury prosecution arising from a mother’s alleged physical abuse of her son and daughter. The defendant argued the many prior incidents were overly prejudicial and cumulative under Rule 403, and also challenged admission of the daughter’s prior forensic-interview statement after accusing her in court of lying. The court held the prior incidents were admissible under Code of Criminal Procedure articles 38.37 and 38.371 because they involved the same child complainants and were probative of intent, state of mind, and the nature of the parent-child relationship, not just propensity. Applying the Rule 403 balancing test, the court concluded the evidence’s substantial contextual and credibility value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or cumulativeness. The court also held that the defendant’s in-court accusation of lying opened the door to admission of the daughter’s prior consistent statement to rebut fabrication and rehabilitate credibility.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, repeated abuse or coercive incidents are most persuasive when framed as relationship-context evidence showing intent, state of mind, credibility, and household dynamics—not merely bad-character proof. And before accusing a child or parent of fabrication, counsel should consider whether that attack will open the door to prior consistent statements such as forensic interviews, school reports, or counselor disclosures."