Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
787 opinions found
In the Matter of the Marriage of Sini Ann Mathews and Wesley Mon Mathews
COA13
In this divorce case, the appellant tried to use a restricted appeal to challenge the final divorce decree after already filing a timely motion for new trial. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that a restricted appeal is available only if the appellant did not timely file any post-judgment motion, and that requirement is jurisdictional under the appellate rules and Ex parte E.H. Because the motion for new trial was filed within thirty days of the decree, the appellant could not satisfy a required element of restricted appeal. The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction and held that later efforts to obtain the appellate record could not cure the defect.
Litigation Takeaway
"Choose your post-judgment remedy carefully. In Texas family cases, a timely motion for new trial and a restricted appeal are not interchangeable fallback options—filing the motion for new trial destroys restricted-appeal jurisdiction."
Loria v. Loria
COA03
In Loria v. Loria, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s order modifying conservatorship rights after a bench trial. The father sought to change the prior joint-managing-conservatorship structure by obtaining the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence and greater medical and tie-breaking authority, arguing that circumstances had materially and substantially changed and that the existing arrangement had become unworkable. The appellate court, applying the abuse-of-discretion standard and deferring to the trial court’s credibility determinations, held that evidence of persistent coparenting conflict, interference with communication, disputes over vaccinations and therapy, lack of follow-through on the children’s developmental needs, and the father’s more stable household was sufficient to support findings of material and substantial change and best interest. The court therefore upheld the reallocation of primary-residence and decision-making rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Modification cases are rarely won by one dramatic fact; they are won by proving a pattern of specific, child-centered problems showing the current order no longer works. If you want to modify conservatorship, build a record with concrete evidence of communication breakdowns, medical and educational conflict, parenting instability, and why a clearer allocation of rights will better serve the child."
In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child
COA13
In *In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child*, the mother challenged only one part of the termination judgment: whether the trial court used the correct version of Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(O). The suit was filed in 2023, but the Legislature amended § 161.001 effective September 1, 2025, repealing the old service-plan ground in subsection (O) and renumbering the substance-abuse ground into subsection (O). The Thirteenth Court focused on the amendment’s express transition clause, which made the new law apply to SAPCRs pending in the trial court on the effective date. Because this case was still pending on September 1, 2025 and was tried afterward, the amended statute controlled. The court held the trial court correctly applied amended subsection (O) and affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"When a family case stays pending across a legislative change, do not assume the filing date controls. Always check the session law’s effective-date and transition provisions, because amended Family Code sections can apply to pending SAPCRs and change pleadings, proof, jury charge, judgment language, and appellate strategy."
In the Interest of K.M.N., P.N. III, E.J.N., I.A.N., B.L.N., C.A.N., S.V.N., L.F.N., and S.N., Children
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed termination of both parents’ rights after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding. The court relied on extensive evidence of danger and instability, including Mother’s cocaine use at the birth of the youngest child, unsafe and unsanitary housing, educational neglect, parentification of older siblings, Father’s sexual-abuse conviction and history of physical abuse, and Mother’s prolonged failure to protect the children despite knowing of Father’s violence and alleged killing of one child. Applying the Family Code best-interest framework and Holley factors, the court held the trial court could reasonably form a firm belief that termination was in the children’s best interest, and it separately affirmed Father’s termination after independent Anders review revealed no non-frivolous appellate issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law cases, failure to protect can be just as powerful as direct abuse. A parent who continues to align with a known abuser, minimizes danger, or cannot show a real safety plan risks losing conservatorship or parental rights even if that parent was not the primary perpetrator."
Juan Morales a/k/a Juan Manuel Morales v. The State of Texas
COA13
In Juan Morales a/k/a Juan Manuel Morales v. The State of Texas, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the defendant’s fourth and fifth motions for continuance in a retrial for continuous sexual abuse of a child. The defense argued it needed more time because its proposed expert was unavailable, first citing medical issues and later scheduling conflicts. The court applied Texas Code of Criminal Procedure articles 29.03, 29.06, 29.07, and 29.08 and held that the trial court acted within its discretion because the continuance motions did not meet the strict statutory requirements for an absent-witness continuance. The fourth motion lacked required specifics about diligence, the expected testimony, and other mandatory elements, and the fifth motion was unverified, which preserved nothing for appellate review. The court also noted the case had already been continued multiple times and the record did not show the expert was medically unavailable on the actual trial date. The conviction was therefore affirmed on the continuance issue.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want a continuance because an expert cannot appear, do not rely on general fairness arguments. File a sworn motion, show specific diligence, explain exactly why the expert matters, prove the absence was not self-created, and give the court a concrete timeline for availability. In family cases, Morales is a strong tool for defeating vague last-minute reset requests and a warning that repeated continuances seriously weaken any appellate complaint."
In the Interest of A.W., N.W., N.W., P.W., Children
COA13
After a jury terminated Mother’s parental rights to four children, she appealed claiming the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support constructive abandonment and best interest, and also complained the order lacked required statutory findings. The court did not reach the merits because Texas preservation rules apply in termination jury trials just as in other civil jury cases. Mother filed none of the recognized preservation vehicles for legal sufficiency and no motion for new trial, which is required to preserve factual-sufficiency complaints. The court also noted that Mother challenged only subsection (N) while the jury also found unchallenged predicate grounds under subsections (D), (E), and (O), any one of which could support termination with a best-interest finding. The court held all complained-of issues were waived or would not afford relief and affirmed the termination order.
Litigation Takeaway
"In any jury-tried family case, appellate sufficiency complaints must be preserved in the trial court or they are likely gone forever. If you may challenge a jury finding on appeal, use a recognized preservation motion, and for factual sufficiency always file a motion for new trial. In termination cases especially, challenge every predicate ground necessary for meaningful relief and promptly object to missing statutory findings in the final order."
In the Interest of M.T., a Child
COA10
The Waco Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment terminating the mother’s parental rights after appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no non-frivolous issues to raise. The court reviewed whether Anders procedures apply in termination cases, whether counsel’s brief provided the required professional evaluation of the record, and whether the court’s own independent review revealed any arguable appellate issue. After confirming counsel addressed potential jurisdictional and evidentiary-sufficiency issues, including predicate grounds under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) and best interest under section 161.001(b)(2), and after finding the mother’s pro se response identified no legal error, the court held the appeal was frivolous, affirmed the termination order, and dismissed the mother’s emergency motion for temporary relief as moot.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family appeals, especially termination cases, appellate success depends on a preserved and legally developed trial record. If no concrete, non-frivolous issue was preserved below, appointed counsel may proceed under Anders, and a general plea for reversal will not substitute for an actual legal complaint."
In the Interest of H.P. Jr. and H.P. III, Children
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of both parents’ rights under Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (b)(2). The court viewed the evidence cumulatively, not incident by incident, and held that the parents’ repeated domestic violence, incarceration, criminal conduct, instability, missed medical care for the children, substance-abuse and mental-health concerns, failure to complete services, and inability to provide safe care showed a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangered the children. The same evidence, along with the children’s improvement in foster care, supported the best-interest finding.
Litigation Takeaway
"Texas courts can infer endangerment and best interest from a parent’s overall pattern of violence, criminality, instability, untreated substance-abuse or mental-health issues, missed medical care, and service-plan noncompliance. In family cases, a party who wants to prove or defeat risk-based restrictions should build or attack the full course-of-conduct narrative, not just isolated events."
In re Claudia Jacobs
COA05
In this post-divorce enforcement dispute, the relator sought mandamus relief and an emergency stay to block an order to appear and an upcoming enforcement hearing. The Dallas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the mandamus filing was procedurally defective: the petition lacked the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, the record did not contain sworn or certified copies of material documents, and the appendix included unredacted sensitive information in violation of Rule 9.9. The court held that these threshold defects defeated mandamus relief, denied the stay as moot, and struck the petition and appendix for the redaction violation.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law mandamus practice, procedure is substance. If your petition lacks a Rule 52 certification, your record is not sworn or certified, or your filing contains unredacted sensitive data, the court may deny relief without ever reaching the underlying enforcement issue."
In re Rebel Hayz Breaux
COA09
After completing his sentence for misdemeanor assault family violence, Breaux filed an article 11.09 habeas application alleging ongoing restraints from the conviction, including the lifetime federal firearm ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) and a final protective order. The trial court denied relief solely because his sentence had expired and it concluded he was no longer restrained. The Beaumont Court of Appeals held that the pleaded federal firearm disability is a sufficient present restraint to support article 11.09 habeas jurisdiction, so the trial court erred in denying the application on that categorical ground. But the court also held that this did not automatically require issuance of the writ, an evidentiary hearing, merits rulings, or appointment of counsel, because the applicant still had to satisfy article 11.14’s procedural and verification requirements.
Litigation Takeaway
"A family-violence conviction does not become legally irrelevant once the sentence ends: the federal firearm ban can be enough continuing restraint to keep post-conviction habeas relief alive. For family-law litigators, that means old assault-family-violence convictions can still carry real leverage in custody, safety, and firearm-related disputes—but any collateral attack on the conviction must be pleaded and verified with precision."