Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1229 opinions found
In the Interest of G.H., a Child
COA11
In In re G.H., the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed termination of both parents’ 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). The court examined a record showing both parents’ ongoing substance abuse, criminal history, prior endangering conduct, instability, and continued problems even after Department involvement and safety measures were put in place. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard and the Holley best-interest framework, the court emphasized that the same evidence supporting endangerment can also support best interest, and that a factfinder may infer future danger from a parent’s past conduct. The parents’ service-plan compliance and supervised visitation did not outweigh the broader evidence of recurring risk, so the termination order was affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"Best-interest cases are won or lost on patterns, not box-checking. Evidence of repeated drug use, criminal instability, and unsafe conduct—especially after CPS or court intervention—can outweigh service-plan completion and recent improvement because courts may infer future risk from past behavior."
Natividad Gutierrez Rodriguez v. The State of Texas
COA11
In Rodriguez v. State, the Eastland Court of Appeals held that revocation of community supervision was supported because Rodriguez pleaded “true” to the remaining alleged violations after the State abandoned one allegation. Applying settled Texas law, the court explained that a plea of true alone is sufficient evidence to support revocation and that proof of a single violation is enough to uphold the order. In the Anders posture, the court independently reviewed the record, found no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, affirmed the revocation, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Litigation Takeaway
"For family-law litigators, a revocation judgment based on a plea of “true” can be potent evidence in related divorce, custody, modification, and protective-order cases. But use it carefully: the plea establishes at least one admitted violation sufficient for revocation, not necessarily every factual allegation in the motion to revoke."
In the Interest of J.M., a Child
COA06
The Texarkana Court of Appeals held that evidence was legally insufficient to support termination under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) when the mother was incarcerated at the child’s birth and the record did not show she created, controlled, selected, or knowingly allowed the child to remain in endangering conditions or surroundings. Applying In re N.G., the court reviewed the challenged subsection (D) finding despite other unchallenged predicate grounds, distinguished environmental endangerment from general parental instability or incarceration, deleted the unsupported (D) finding, and otherwise affirmed termination based on other grounds and best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"Don’t treat incarceration, instability, or absence as automatic proof of environmental endangerment. If you are pursuing a subsection (D) theory, you need evidence tying the parent to the child’s actual surroundings through knowledge and control; if you are defending, challenge any attempt to blur subsection (D) with subsection (E) and always appeal adverse (D) or (E) findings because of their future collateral consequences."
In the Interest of C.J.C., O.C.C. and V.A.R.C., Children
COA08
The El Paso Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the mother’s parental rights, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and for best interest. The court relied on a pattern of endangerment shown by domestic violence in the home, conflicting explanations for one child’s facial injuries, neglect of an infant’s serious medical needs, and unsafe, unstable living conditions. Although Mother completed some services, the court concluded partial compliance did not outweigh the ongoing safety concerns, lack of credibility, and failure to adequately protect the children.
Litigation Takeaway
"Courts view domestic violence, suspicious or inconsistently explained injuries, medical neglect, and unsafe housing cumulatively as powerful endangerment evidence. For parents, partial service compliance is not enough if the core safety issues remain unresolved; for petitioners, the strongest case ties these facts together into a continuing pattern of danger and poor parental judgment."
In the Interest of I.C. and K.C., Children
COA06
The Texarkana Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Father’s parental rights, holding that legally sufficient evidence supported endangerment findings under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and the best-interest finding under § 161.001(b)(2). The court analyzed Father’s conduct as a continuing pattern of endangerment, relying on evidence of repeated positive drug tests, multiple missed tests treated as presumed positives, incarceration, pending criminal charges, instability, and near-total failure to maintain contact with the child. Although Father completed some services, the court held that partial compliance did not overcome unresolved substance-abuse and stability concerns. The court also emphasized that the child was thriving in a safe, stable, adoptive placement, which supported the best-interest determination.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas child-related litigation, courts focus on patterns, not isolated incidents: ongoing drug use, missed tests, incarceration, criminal instability, and lack of contact can outweigh partial service-plan compliance and strongly support findings of endangerment and best interest. For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of building a record that pairs parental instability with evidence of the child’s need for safety, permanence, and a stable placement."
Webb v. Ramirez
COA03
In Webb v. Ramirez, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a bill of review attacking a default parentage order. Webb argued he lacked notice of the final hearing, but at the bill-of-review hearing he offered no testimony, affidavit, or documents to explain his failure to appear or to rebut the court file. The trial court judicially noticed its file, which showed personal service and a signed February 2023 order setting the April final hearing and bearing Webb’s signature. Relying on Valdez, Katy Venture, and Drewery, the court held that even when a petitioner frames the challenge as a due-process notice defect, he is excused only from proving the first two traditional bill-of-review elements—not from proving that his own fault or negligence did not contribute to the default. Because Webb presented no competent evidence negating negligence and the file affirmatively showed notice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
Litigation Takeaway
"A bill of review based on alleged lack of notice is an evidence problem, not just a legal argument. If the court file shows service or a signed setting order, the petitioner must come forward with real evidence explaining the missed hearing and negating his own negligence; otherwise, the file itself may defeat the attack."
In re Rise Title, LLC d/b/a Rise Title of Texas
COA03
In In re Rise Title, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a probate court could enforce a sale decree by civil contempt against a nonparty title company that had actual notice of the decree. The decree required that sale proceeds from estate property “shall be placed into the Court Registry,” but Rise Title instead wired the funds to the estate’s credit-union account at the administrator’s direction. On mandamus, Rise argued it could not be held in contempt because it was not a party and was not named in the decree. The court rejected that argument, reasoning that civil contempt may reach a nonparty who has actual notice of a clear, specific, and unambiguous court order that applies to the conduct at issue. The court emphasized that the decree imposed an operative command regarding a specific fund, that Rise undisputedly reviewed the decree and acted with notice, and that the probate court’s in rem authority over the property and proceeds supported enforcement. Because the contempt order was coercive rather than punitive and simply required Rise to deposit the funds into the registry, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Mandamus relief was denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a nonparty controls money or property covered by a court order, actual notice can be enough to expose that nonparty to civil contempt—even if the order does not name them. For family-law lawyers, the lesson is to draft asset-control orders with precise mandatory language, give direct notice to title companies, banks, plan administrators, and other stakeholders, and treat third-party compliance as an enforcement issue from the start."
In re Laci Kay Johnson s/k/a Laci Kay Bode
COA05
In this mandamus proceeding, the relator challenged two family-law-related oral rulings: the trial court’s denial of a habeas petition and denial of a motion to dismiss. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the relator failed to provide a sufficient mandamus record. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a), along with settled mandamus law, the court explained that mandamus relief requires either a signed written order or a reporter’s record showing that an oral ruling was clear, specific, and enforceable. Because the relator provided neither a written order nor hearing transcripts, the court could not determine what the trial court actually ordered and denied mandamus and the related emergency motions.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you may need mandamus review of a bench ruling, build the record immediately: get a court reporter, obtain the transcript, and push for a signed written order. In family-law emergency practice, an oral ruling without a transcript is usually a dead end on mandamus."
In Re Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
COA14
In this mandamus proceeding, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a trial court abused its discretion by imposing severe spoliation sanctions against Securitas without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff claimed Securitas failed to preserve electronic records that could show whether a security guard was present at the time of a shooting, while Securitas disputed that any responsive evidence was destroyed, what data existed, and whether any loss caused prejudice. Applying Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, the court explained that before imposing spoliation remedies, the movant must prove a duty to preserve, a breach of that duty, and resulting prejudice. Because those predicate facts were contested, the trial court could not resolve them on written submissions alone or impose sanctions that effectively decided a merits-related issue and barred contrary proof. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief and held that an evidentiary hearing is required when spoliation predicates are factually disputed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a spoliation dispute turns on contested facts, treat it like a mini-trial. In family law cases involving deleted texts, missing financial records, app data, or surveillance footage, a court cannot impose adverse inferences or issue-limiting sanctions based on briefing alone; the movant must prove duty, breach, and prejudice through evidence, and the responding party should insist on an evidentiary hearing."
In re David Brown
COA09
In this original proceeding, David Brown sought mandamus relief from juvenile release-related orders entered after a detention hearing, asking the court of appeals to vacate the orders and grant broader relief. The Beaumont Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because Brown failed to provide the mandamus record required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a), including signed or certified copies of the challenged orders and a reporter’s record of the hearing. Applying the ordinary mandamus standards, the court held that without a competent record it could not determine whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion or whether Brown lacked an adequate appellate remedy. The court also declined to treat the filing as a habeas petition because the record did not show a contempt order or qualifying restraint of liberty. The petition and request for temporary relief were denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"Mandamus is won on the record, not the briefing. If you want emergency appellate relief in a family-law-type dispute, you must file the signed or certified operative orders, the reporter’s record, and the key supporting materials; otherwise the court will likely deny relief without ever reaching the substance."