Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1447 opinions found
In the Interest of L.Q.-W., L.W., and L.W., Children
COA02
The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of a mother’s parental rights after evidence showed she attempted suicide by ingesting antifreeze and alcohol while she was the sole caregiver for three very young children. The court held that this incident, combined with her untreated mental-health issues, failure to complete services, minimal visitation, and failure to appear at trial, was legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment findings under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E). The court also upheld the best-interest finding and affirmed denial of placement with the children’s grandfather because the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that his home was not a safe relative placement.
Litigation Takeaway
"A mental-health crisis can support an endangerment finding when the evidence ties the episode to immediate danger to the children, especially where the parent is the only available caregiver. Relative placement is never automatic—family members must prove their home is presently safe, and preservation and briefing defects can sink appellate complaints."
Hurt v. Goswami
COA05
In Hurt v. Goswami, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that documents produced in discovery are not automatically self-authenticating just because they came from the opposing party. The appellants tried to rely on the appellees’ expert designation and discovery responses as summary-judgment evidence, but the court explained that Rule 902 did not make those materials self-authenticating and Rule 193.7 applied only if the proponent showed notice of intended use and no timely good-faith authenticity objection. Because the record did not show Rule 193.7 notice, the trial court properly excluded the exhibits as unauthenticated. The court also upheld exclusion of other exhibits on relevance grounds, found any error harmless, and affirmed admission of fee testimony under Rule 193.6.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to use the other side’s produced documents in a summary judgment, hearing, or trial, do not assume production alone authenticates them. Build a Rule 193.7 record by giving notice, preserving proof of service, and addressing any authenticity objection, or be prepared to authenticate the documents another way."
In the Interest of B.R.M. and M.M.M., Children
COA07
In this SAPCR modification appeal after a jury trial, the mother challenged the evidence supporting an order naming the father sole managing conservator and awarding attorney’s fees against her. The Amarillo Court of Appeals focused first on preservation, explaining that after a jury trial a legal-sufficiency complaint must be preserved through a recognized vehicle such as a directed-verdict motion, JNOV, charge objection, motion to disregard, or a motion for new trial specifically raising no-evidence grounds. Although the mother filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration, the court held that even if treated as a motion for new trial, it was too general and did not specifically assert legal insufficiency, so the complaint was not preserved. The court also held she failed to show harmful error regarding juror questions and alleged inattentiveness, and that her factual-sufficiency and attorney’s-fee complaints were inadequately briefed. The modification order and fee award were affirmed.
Litigation Takeaway
"If a family-law case is tried to a jury, do not assume you can raise a no-evidence complaint for the first time on appeal. Preserve legal sufficiency with a specific directed-verdict motion, charge objection, JNOV, motion to disregard, or motion for new trial that clearly identifies the challenged finding and says why the evidence is legally insufficient; a generic motion to reconsider will not do the job."
In the Interest of A.V.
COA04
In In the Interest of A.V., the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights. The dispute on appeal was whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination, especially under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(E), which requires a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being. The court analyzed the father’s repeated domestic violence against the mother, failure to complete core court-ordered services, refusal or failure to submit to drug testing, inconsistent participation in intervention programs, and minimal visitation with the child as a single pattern of endangering conduct rather than isolated shortcomings. It held that this cumulative evidence, together with the child’s stability in a relative placement and the father’s weak bond with the child, was sufficient to support subsection (E), best interest, and the judgment terminating his parental rights.
Litigation Takeaway
"Pattern beats piecemeal explanations. In Texas family-law cases, repeated domestic violence, missed services, skipped drug tests, and weak parent-child contact can be woven into one persuasive endangerment narrative. Lawyers seeking restrictions or termination should present these facts cumulatively; lawyers defending against them must build documented compliance and engagement early, because courts will not excuse each problem in isolation when the overall record shows instability and disengagement."
In re Environment Plus, Inc., R. Alexander Conant, and Joshua Eames-Cepero
COA03
In this mandamus proceeding, the Austin Court of Appeals held that a trial court in a garnishment case could not impose Rule 13 or Chapter 10 sanctions for allegedly sanctionable pleadings filed earlier in a separate contract case. The court analyzed sanctions jurisdiction as proceeding-specific, not dispute-specific, and concluded that once the original case was separate—and its sanctions request had already been dismissed after plenary power expired—the garnishment action could not be used to revive sanctions authority over filings from that prior cause. The portions of the sanctions order tied to the earlier contract suit were therefore void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and were vacated by conditional mandamus. The court denied mandamus as to sanctions based on conduct within the garnishment proceeding itself because those complaints were not jurisdictional and the relators failed to make the evidentiary showing required to prove that immediate payment would so impair litigation that appeal was inadequate.
Litigation Takeaway
"Sanctions under Rule 13 and Chapter 10 must be sought in the same cause number where the challenged filing occurred. In family-law practice, courts and lawyers cannot bundle conduct from a divorce, modification, enforcement, turnover, or garnishment matter into one later sanctions order just because the disputes involve the same parties. If a court sanctions conduct from a separate proceeding, that portion of the order is vulnerable as void and mandamus may be the fastest fix."
Terrell v. Duke
COA04
In Terrell v. Duke, the wife appealed a divorce decree that resolved property division, conservatorship, possession, child support, name-change, and competing tort claims after a lengthy jury trial. But she did not secure a reporter’s record. The Fourth Court of Appeals held that most of her complaints—including challenges tied to an alleged premarital agreement, a prior SAPCR order, evidentiary sufficiency, juror-contact complaints, mistrial, and sanctions—depended on the trial evidence or events occurring during trial. Applying longstanding Texas appellate rules, the court presumed the omitted evidence supported the judgment, explained that documents in the clerk’s record are not evidence merely because they were filed, and concluded it could not assess error or harm without the trial record. The court affirmed the decree.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want to win a family-law appeal, you need the record. Without a reporter’s record, Texas appellate courts will usually presume the evidence supports the judgment, making challenges to property division, conservatorship, support, premarital-agreement enforcement, and trial-conduct rulings effectively dead on arrival."
M.B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
COA03
In M.B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the Third Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court order terminating a father’s parental rights to two children after appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no meritorious issues for appeal. The court independently reviewed the entire record, as required in Anders cases, and specifically examined the trial court’s endangerment findings under Texas Family Code section 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) because those findings carry collateral consequences in future parent-child litigation. Finding no nonfrivolous issue as to the predicate grounds, best-interest finding, or any other aspect of the decree, the court affirmed. The court also denied counsel’s motion to withdraw, holding under In re P.M. that appointed counsel’s duties continue through any proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including filing an Anders-compliant petition for review if requested by the client.
Litigation Takeaway
"Even when an appeal appears hopeless, Texas termination cases require careful record review and special attention to endangerment findings under subsections (D) and (E), because those findings can affect future family-law cases. For trial lawyers, the lesson is to fully develop and preserve the record on child-endangerment allegations; for appointed appellate counsel, filing an Anders brief does not end the representation."
In the Interest of O.P.R., A.J.R. and H.T.R., Children
COA05
In this Dallas divorce appeal, the court affirmed a decree giving the parents a 50/50 possession schedule and ordering no child support. Mother argued the trial court should have used a standard or expanded standard possession order and should not have deviated from guideline support. Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard, the court held the trial judge could credit evidence that Father was heavily involved in the children’s daily care, consistently exercised his time, and was the parent the children turned to for comfort, while also considering evidence of Mother’s supervision and medical-judgment lapses, including the peanut-allergy incident. Because the record supported the best-interest finding for equal possession, the court also held the trial court acted within its discretion in deviating from guideline child support and ordering that neither parent pay support. The court rejected Mother’s remaining procedural and constitutional complaints and affirmed the decree in full.
Litigation Takeaway
"If you want 50/50 possession and no child support in a Texas family case, win it with detailed best-interest evidence about actual caregiving, availability, supervision, and how the schedule works in real life. On appeal, these rulings are highly deferential, so trial-level record building, damaging admissions, and error preservation usually decide the case."
Jason Gregory Noble v. The State of Texas
COA09
In Jason Gregory Noble v. State of Texas, the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion for new trial after Noble’s aggravated assault-family violence conviction. Noble argued that a post-trial affidavit from the complainant warranted a new trial as newly discovered evidence and showed the State relied on false evidence. The court held the affidavit did not satisfy the new-trial standard because it was largely cumulative of credibility issues already present at trial, served mainly to impeach the State’s proof, and was unlikely to change the result given the State’s corroborating evidence, including medical records, photographs, body-camera footage, and third-party testimony. The court also rejected the false-evidence claim, explaining that a later recanting or contradictory affidavit from a non-testifying complainant does not establish a due-process violation without proof that materially false evidence was actually used at trial and probably affected the verdict.
Litigation Takeaway
"Later recantations are not magic bullets. In family-violence-related family law cases, lawyers should build or attack the case with contemporaneous, corroborating evidence—medical records, photos, body-cam, and third-party witnesses—because a post-judgment affidavit that merely changes the story will often be treated as impeachment-only and insufficient to reopen the case."
In the Matter of K.J.F., a Juvenile
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed a juvenile court’s order transferring K.J.F. from TJJD to TDCJ on a determinate sentence despite evidence of a low IQ and an asserted intellectual-disability claim. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and focused on the statutory transfer factors, including the seriousness of the underlying offenses, K.J.F.’s extensive violent and disciplinary history in custody, the services TJJD provided, his minimal progress in treatment, and ongoing public-safety concerns. The court held that low IQ or alleged intellectual disability is relevant but not dispositive and does not categorically bar transfer when the overall record supports a finding that rehabilitation has failed and continued confinement in TJJD is not appropriate.
Litigation Takeaway
"Diagnostic labels rarely win family-law-style discretionary cases by themselves. Whether the issue is custody, modification, placement, or restrictions, courts will usually give more weight to actual conduct, service history, safety risks, and measurable functioning than to IQ scores or disability labels standing alone."