Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1544 opinions found
In the Interest of I.G., a Child
COA07
The Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights to I.G. after Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on both predicate grounds and best interest. The record described neglect concerns shortly after the child’s birth, validated methamphetamine use, unsafe home conditions, Mother’s incarceration, and her later conviction and 45-year sentence for possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, while the child was thriving in a grandparent placement. The court recited the governing rule that termination requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one ground under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1) plus best interest under § 161.001(b)(2), and that one supported predicate ground is enough to affirm if best interest is also supported. Although the excerpt does not include the court’s detailed merits analysis, it establishes that the trial court found grounds under § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (P), and (Q), found termination in the child’s best interest, and the appellate court affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"In termination cases, the appeal usually turns on the record built long before trial: prove multiple predicate grounds, develop separate best-interest evidence, and document how substance abuse, unsafe conditions, incarceration, and the child’s progress in placement affect the analysis. For parents, a thin record on services, alternative care options, and best interest leaves little room for a successful sufficiency challenge on appeal."
In the Interest of N.A.T., a Child
COA05
In *In re N.A.T.*, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that a father could not use Texas Family Code § 161.005 to undo a prior adjudication of paternity because his mistaken-paternity petition was filed too late. Although he claimed he first learned in December 2023 that he was not the child’s biological father, the record showed he had suspected nonpaternity for years, requested court-ordered genetic testing in the 2009 divorce, and attempted at-home DNA testing in 2012. The court treated the date of awareness as a fact issue for the trial court and deferred to the trial court’s implied finding that Father was aware of facts indicating nonpaternity well more than two years before filing suit in June 2024. Because limitations barred the petition, Father failed to establish the meritorious prima facie case required by § 161.005(f), so the trial court was not required to order genetic testing. The court also held Father did not preserve his due-process complaint and affirmed the support-modification order.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mistaken-paternity claims can be lost on limitations before any DNA test is ever ordered. If a parent suspected nonpaternity years earlier, prior requests for testing, prior statements, or prior conduct can defeat a later § 161.005 petition at the prima facie stage. For family-law litigators, this case highlights the importance of building or attacking the limitations record early and preserving any procedural or due-process complaints clearly on the record."
In the Interest of A.T., a Child
COA05
In this Dallas SAPCR appeal, alleged paternal grandparents intervened seeking standing under former Texas Family Code sections 102.004(a)(2), 102.004(b), and 153.432. The court treated standing as a jurisdictional issue and applied the no-evidence framework for challenged jurisdictional facts. Although the parties disputed whether Brent Taylor was the child’s father, the court resolved the case on a narrower ground: the intervenors produced no evidence that they were Brent Taylor’s parents. Because every standing theory depended on proving that lineage link, pleadings and assumptions were not enough. The court held the Taylors failed to raise a fact issue on grandparent status, so dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was proper.
Litigation Takeaway
"If standing depends on a family relationship, prove every link in the chain with actual evidence. In grandparent-access and conservatorship cases, allegations, shared surnames, or indirect references will not substitute for proof of lineage, and a missing jurisdictional link can end the case before the court ever reaches best interest."
Balderas v. Balderas
COA09
In Balderas v. Balderas, the petitioner filed for divorce and made multiple attempts to serve the respondent, including citation, certified mail, substituted service, and publication-related efforts, but never perfected service as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. After the trial court twice issued notices of intent to dismiss for want of prosecution, the petitioner responded to the first but failed to file a timely motion to retain after the second notice. The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the trial court acted within its discretion in dismissing the case because attempted service is not the same as perfected service, a substituted-service order does not complete service without a Rule 107-compliant return, and the petitioner failed to show the diligence and good cause required to retain the case on the docket.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases, service efforts alone will not save a case from dismissal—service must actually be perfected, and any dismissal notice must be answered with a timely, rule-compliant motion to retain showing specific diligence and good cause."
In the Interest of E.B.J., J.B.J., B.B., and C.B.J., Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of parental rights after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E). The record showed Mother engaged in a deliberate course of abusive conduct, including severe physical abuse that caused one child to suffer multiple hand fractures in different stages of healing, along with other mistreatment and threats to keep the children silent. As to Father, the court held that direct abuse was not required because subsection (E) also reaches a parent who knows of abuse and fails to protect the children. The court relied on medical testimony, child statements, school-witness observations, trauma evidence, and the parents’ denial of responsibility to find both endangerment and best interest. Because one supported predicate ground plus best interest is enough to affirm, the court did not need to reach other grounds, and it rejected any argument that the Department also had to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family cases, failing to protect a child from known abuse can be just as damaging as committing the abuse yourself. Lawyers should build endangerment cases around patterns—repeated injuries, third-party observations, implausible explanations, secrecy, and ongoing denial—because those facts can support termination and also justify major conservatorship and possession restrictions in nontermination cases."
Lowell Williams v. The State of Texas
COA13
In Williams v. State, the defendant challenged the admission of underwear and related DNA testing in a sexual-assault prosecution involving his stepdaughter, arguing the State failed to properly authenticate the clothing and establish an adequate chain of custody. The court held that Texas Rule of Evidence 901 sets only a low, prima facie threshold: the complainant’s testimony identifying the clothing she pulled out for police, supported by body-camera footage and the surrounding collection-and-testing evidence, was sufficient to support a finding that the items were what the State claimed. Because there was no affirmative evidence of tampering, substitution, or alteration, any gaps in handling went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s admission of the clothing and DNA evidence.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family litigation, a witness with personal knowledge can often authenticate physical evidence without a perfect chain of custody. If you can identify the item and tell a coherent story connecting it to collection or testing, Rule 901 is usually satisfied; absent real evidence of tampering, chain-of-custody complaints generally attack weight, not admissibility."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Latricia Mundorf and Dillon Dan Mundorf
COA13
In Mundorf v. Mundorf, the court of appeals considered whether a divorce decree improperly awarded one spouse’s separate property to the other as part of the community estate. The husband proved, and the wife conceded on appeal, that several horses and one tract acquired before marriage were his separate property. Applying the community-property presumption, the clear-and-convincing standard for rebuttal, and Eggemeyer’s rule against divestiture of separate property, the court held the trial court had no authority to award those proven separate-property horses to Wife, making reversal automatic as a matter of law. The court declined to recharacterize other disputed assets where Husband’s briefing lacked record citations or developed analysis, upheld the finding that the 570 FM 1358 property was community based on conflicting evidence, and upheld the characterization of DM High Roller as Wife’s separate property based on tracing testimony and admissions. Because the decree divested Husband of proven separate property, the court reversed and remanded the overall property division.
Litigation Takeaway
"Characterization wins or loses property cases in Texas divorce. If you can clearly trace an asset as separate property, the court cannot award it to the other spouse, and divestiture will usually require reversal without a harm analysis. But separate-property claims must be proved and briefed asset by asset with precise record citations, because weak tracing and undeveloped briefing will leave the community presumption intact."
Stockton v. State
COA13
In Stockton v. State, the court considered whether statements a domestic-violence complainant made to a responding officer and later to a paramedic, both captured on body-camera video, were barred by the Confrontation Clause after the complainant became unavailable at trial. Applying Crawford, Davis, Bryant, and Texas authority, the court focused on the objective primary purpose of the exchanges. It concluded the officer’s initial questions were asked during an unfolding domestic-disturbance response when the scene was not yet secure and the officer did not know who was involved, whether the suspect remained nearby, or whether weapons or additional danger existed. It likewise concluded the paramedic’s questions were aimed at assessing possible strangulation injuries and addressing immediate medical and safety concerns. Because both exchanges were primarily emergency-response and medical-assessment interactions rather than formal evidence-gathering for prosecution, the statements were non-testimonial, and the trial court properly admitted the videos.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases involving abuse allegations, early body-cam, 911, and EMS statements can carry major evidentiary weight even if the complainant later recants, disappears, or refuses to testify. The key fight is often whether the statements were made during an ongoing emergency and for safety or medical purposes, which strengthens admissibility and persuasive value in custody, protective-order, and divorce litigation."
Adrian Ross Bey v. Virginia Pond
COA14
In a bill-of-review proceeding, a father sought to set aside a prior SAPCR judgment. The mother obtained dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, and the Office of the Attorney General separately succeeded in quashing the father’s subpoena. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that Rule 91a is categorically unavailable in suits brought under the Texas Family Code, and that this bar extends to a bill of review attacking a SAPCR judgment because the proceeding’s purpose was to undo and retry a Family Code case. The court also rejected the argument that the dismissal could be affirmed under the trial court’s inherent authority, noting the father was not given a proper opportunity to present the prima facie merits of his bill of review. The court reversed the Rule 91a dismissal and remanded, but affirmed the order quashing the subpoena.
Litigation Takeaway
"Do not use Rule 91a as a dismissal shortcut in Family Code litigation—even in a procedurally separate bill of review. If the case arises under the Family Code, counsel must use authorized tools such as special exceptions, summary judgment where proper, jurisdictional challenges, or a merits hearing, and should preserve error if a court tries to dispose of the case under Rule 91a anyway."
In the Interest of E.B.J., J.B.J., B.B., and C.B.J., Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s rights to all four children and Father’s rights to the three girls, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and best interest under section 161.001(b)(2). The court relied on evidence of a deliberate pattern of severe physical abuse of Brian, including multiple hand fractures in different stages of healing, corroborated by medical testimony, school observations, child disclosures, and Charlotte’s testimony describing ongoing abuse and concealment. As to Father, the court held that subsection (E) was also satisfied because evidence showed he knew of Mother’s abuse and failed to protect the children. The court further held that abuse directed at one child can support endangerment findings as to siblings, and that the Department did not need to prove a material and substantial change in circumstances as an element of its termination claim in this post-2023 proceeding. Because subsection (E) and best interest were supported, the court did not reach the remaining predicate grounds.
Litigation Takeaway
"Endangerment cases are built on patterns, not isolated incidents: severe abuse of one child, combined with the other parent’s failure to intervene, can justify termination and strongly influence conservatorship disputes involving all siblings. For litigators, the case shows the value of tying together medical proof, child statements, witness observations, therapy evidence, and parental denial to prove a continuing safety threat."