Opinion Library
Texas court rulings translated into actionable litigation strategy.
This Week's DigestStrategy Category
1262 opinions found
In the Interest of Z.A.A., a Child
COA01
The First Court of Appeals affirmed termination of the father’s parental rights to Z.A.A. after DFPS proved constructive abandonment and best interest by clear and convincing evidence. The court held DFPS made reasonable efforts to reunify by creating and discussing a family service plan and repeatedly trying to locate and contact father through phone numbers, relatives, social media, prior addresses, and his parole officer. It also found father failed to maintain significant contact, failed to support the child, and showed an inability to provide a safe environment, especially because he had substantial periods out of jail but still did not visit or engage. On best interest, the court emphasized the child’s stability and improvement in the maternal great-grandfather’s home, the adoption plan and backup caregiver plan, and contrasted that with father’s drug- and domestic-violence-related criminal history, repeated incarceration, nonparticipation in services, and ongoing absence.
Litigation Takeaway
"In constructive-abandonment cases, DFPS wins on appeal when it builds a detailed record of specific reunification efforts and the parent’s missed opportunities during periods of freedom. For family-law litigators generally, the case reinforces that stability, consistent contact, support, and a concrete permanency plan can outweigh a parent’s bare biological connection when best interest is at issue."
In the Interest of K.D.M. and S.I.L.
COA14
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights to two children after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and 161.003, as well as on best interest and conservatorship. The court focused on evidence of endangering surroundings and conditions, including domestic violence, unstable care arrangements, and the prior death of an infant sibling in Mother’s care that the Department linked to medical neglect. It also relied on Mother’s significant cognitive limitations and her inability to present a coherent, realistic plan for housing, childcare, schooling, therapies, supervision, and emergency response. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard, the court held that Mother’s limitations were not merely abstract diagnoses but functionally prevented her from meeting the children’s present and future needs, and that termination and appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator were in the children’s best interest.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law cases, courts look beyond a parent’s good intentions and focus on functional parenting capacity: who will care for the child, where the child will live, how needs will be met, and how safety risks will be managed. Where cognitive limitations, domestic violence, instability, or poor safety planning affect day-to-day care, lawyers must build a concrete record with specific facts, corroboration, and workable caregiving plans."
Ortego v. State
COA01
In Ortego v. State, a husband sought to suppress incriminating text messages discovered on his cell phone by his wife, arguing the search was unconstitutional and violated Texas computer security laws. The First Court of Appeals analyzed the search under the Fourth Amendment and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 38.23, which excludes evidence obtained in violation of the law. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to private individuals acting without government involvement. Furthermore, because the husband had provided his wife with a written "Commitment to You" note granting her permission to look at his phone "for any reasons" if she had concerns, she had "effective consent." This consent defeated claims of illegal access, making the evidence admissible.
Litigation Takeaway
"Documented consent is the ultimate "kill switch" for digital privacy objections. In family law disputes, evidence found via "digital self-help" is likely admissible if there is a written agreement, a reconciliation memo, or a proven course of conduct involving password sharing and mutual device access. To protect or attack such evidence, practitioners must focus on the specific scope, duration, and potential revocation of that consent rather than general privacy rights."
Gurrola v. State
COA03
In Gurrola v. State, the Austin Court of Appeals held that the defendant waived any appellate complaint that a trauma therapist’s guilt-innocence testimony was improper victim-impact evidence. Although defense counsel objected at the outset to the witness generally on relevance, prejudice, bolstering, and victimization grounds, counsel did not obtain a running objection and did not renew those objections when the specific testimony about therapy, PTSD, trauma symptoms, and emotional effects was actually elicited. Applying Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a) and preservation cases such as Martinez and Fuller, the court concluded that an initial global objection and a granted motion in limine were not enough to preserve error. Because the complaint was not preserved, the court did not reach the admissibility merits and affirmed the conviction.
Litigation Takeaway
"In family-law trials, one opening objection to a therapist, counselor, or expert is not enough. If damaging testimony keeps coming in, you must keep objecting or secure a clear running objection; and a motion in limine never substitutes for a trial objection. Appellate issues are often lost on preservation, not merit."
In re Lillian Gonzalez
COA14
In In re Lillian Gonzalez, the relator asked the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to order the Texas Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division, to release child-support funds. The court did not reach the merits of whether she was entitled to the money. Instead, it analyzed its mandamus jurisdiction under Texas Government Code section 22.221 and held that courts of appeals may issue mandamus against certain judges and associate judges, but not against the OAG Child Support Division. The court also held that Gonzalez did not show the writ was necessary to protect or enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction under section 22.221(a). Because neither basis for mandamus jurisdiction applied, the court dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction.
Litigation Takeaway
"Before filing mandamus in a child-support payment dispute, identify the correct respondent and the source of the complained-of conduct. Even a strong complaint about withheld support funds will be dismissed if the petition is directed at a non-judicial actor like the OAG and does not show why extraordinary relief is necessary to protect the court of appeals’ jurisdiction."
In the Interest of W.R.I.F.
COA05
The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed termination of Mother’s parental rights to a medically vulnerable infant after concluding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E), (M), and (R), and that termination was in the child’s best interest. The court emphasized Mother’s two-decade methamphetamine addiction, admitted drug use during pregnancy, prior endangerment-based terminations as to two other children, missed drug testing, unstable housing, and her failure during a monitored return to consistently meet the child’s significant medical needs, including therapy attendance and inhaler management. Applying the clear-and-convincing standard, the court treated these facts as a continuing course of endangering conduct rather than isolated lapses, and it held that the stable foster placement with the child’s sibling strongly supported best interest. The court also rejected Mother’s due-process complaint about a post-trial clarification hearing and her ineffective-assistance claim because she failed to show any substantive deprivation or prejudice.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family-law cases, courts look at the whole pattern, not just recent improvement. Long-term drug use, prior endangerment findings, unstable housing, and a parent’s inability to handle a child’s actual medical needs can outweigh short-term compliance and strongly support findings of danger and best interest. If you are trying the case, build a timeline, tie the conduct to the child’s real-world needs, and make a concrete record of harm for any procedural complaint."
In the Interest of R.D., a Child
COA07
In this parental-termination appeal, the Seventh Court of Appeals did not reach the merits because the reporter’s record was overdue and the court reporter ignored the court’s status request. Applying Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(c) and 37.3(a)(2), the court held that it had to take action to avoid further delay and protect the parties’ rights in an accelerated appeal. The court abated the appeal and remanded for the trial court to determine what work remained on the record, why the delay occurred, how long completion would take, and whether the original reporter could timely finish it. The court also required the trial court to arrange a substitute reporter if the original reporter needed more than twenty additional days to complete, certify, and file the record.
Litigation Takeaway
"In Texas family appeals, especially accelerated termination cases, lawyers cannot treat the reporter’s record as a back-office issue. Monitor record deadlines aggressively, document all communications, and raise delay problems early, because appellate courts may abate the case, remand for findings, and even require a substitute reporter to keep the appeal moving."
Pegram v. Pegram
COA05
In Pegram v. Pegram, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed a county-court default judgment entered after the defendant failed to appear for a trial de novo from justice court. The court held the judgment was a post-answer default, not a no-answer default, because the defendant’s justice-court motion to dismiss functioned as an answer and carried forward into the county-court proceeding. Because a post-answer default requires the plaintiff to prove every element with evidence, and no reporter’s record existed, the court could not review the defendant’s legal-sufficiency challenge. The absence of a record required reversal and remand.
Litigation Takeaway
"If the opposing party has filed anything that counts as an answer, a later nonappearance does not create a no-answer default. In family cases, that means you must present admissible evidence on every element of requested relief and make a reporter’s record, or you risk reversal on appeal."
Martinez v. State
COA07
In Martinez v. State, the Amarillo Court of Appeals considered whether a defendant on community supervision could refuse a treatment-required instant-offense polygraph by invoking the Fifth Amendment after his conviction for indecency with a child was already final on direct appeal. The court focused on the narrow scope of the polygraph, which was limited to the adjudicated offense and did not reach other potentially chargeable conduct. Relying on Fifth Amendment principles discussed in Ex parte Dangelo and In re Medina, the court held that the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to questioning about an offense that can no longer expose the defendant to future criminal liability because direct appeals are exhausted. On that basis, the court concluded the refusal to participate supported revocation of community supervision. The court also modified the judgment and bill of costs to remove language suggesting future appointed-attorney’s fees could be assessed despite an indigency finding and no evidence of changed financial circumstances.
Litigation Takeaway
"A Fifth Amendment objection is not a blanket shield when the questioning is tightly limited to a finalized criminal offense. In family-law cases, lawyers should frame discovery, evaluations, and examinations with precision: if the inquiry concerns only an adjudicated offense with no remaining criminal exposure, a broad privilege claim may fail and noncooperation can carry real litigation consequences."
In re Adeel Zaidi, A.K. Chagla and Prestige Consulting d/b/a Turnaround Management Group
SCOTX
In an original mandamus proceeding, relators challenged a trial court order disqualifying their lawyer after his legal assistant—who previously worked for opposing counsel on the same case and had access to privileged strategy and work product—later performed services on the matter at the relators’ firm without any evidence she was admonished or screened before touching the file. The Texas Supreme Court applied the Phoenix Founders bright-line rule governing side-switching nonlawyer staff: when a nonlawyer worked on the same matter for the other side, the nonlawyer is conclusively presumed to have obtained confidences, and the hiring firm can avoid disqualification only by timely prophylactic measures, including admonishing the employee before the employee begins work on the conflicted matter. Because the record showed the assistant performed work on the case multiple times and there was no evidence of any pre-work admonition or timely screen, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in disqualifying counsel. The Court also rejected the argument that e-filing service notices listing the assistant as the “filer” conclusively established waiver; such notices do not, as a matter of law, prove the opposing party had actual knowledge of the disqualifying facts and then unreasonably delayed. Mandamus relief was denied.
Litigation Takeaway
"If your firm hires (or shares) a paralegal/legal assistant who previously worked on the other side of the same case, you must admonish and screen that employee before they do anything on the file—even “ministerial” tasks like e-filing—or you risk automatic disqualification under the Phoenix Founders bright-line rule. And if you’re seeking disqualification, don’t assume routine e-filing notices will defeat you on waiver; waiver requires proof of actual knowledge plus unreasonable delay, not just metadata."