CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 12-18-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2019

in the Interest of B. L. W., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Brandon Lynn Walker against a trial court's order concerning conservatorship and child support for B.L.W., a child he shares with Kamena Taquay Handsborough. Brandon challenged the custody arrangements, child support calculations, the denial of his motion for a new trial, and the refusal to grant additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as his motion to suspend judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's conservatorship decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in appointing both parents as joint managing conservators and Kamena with the exclusive right to designate the child's primary residence. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the order regarding child support due to an inconsistency in the ordered amounts, which were not properly supported by evidence or calculation guidelines. All other issues raised by Brandon were overruled.

Child CustodyChild SupportParental RightsAbuse of DiscretionFamily LawConservatorshipMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawMotion to Suspend Judgment
References
43
Case No. 14-14-00968-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

in the Interest of J.O.A., a Child

This case involves an appeal by the mother (A.S.A.) concerning a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) order from the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The order modified conservatorship and child support in favor of the father (A.A.) of J.O.A., a child. The mother contended the trial court erred by awarding custody to the father, denying her motions for new trial and continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. While the conservatorship issue was deemed moot as J.O.A. had turned 18, the appellate court found a live controversy remained regarding financial obligations. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's motion for new trial, citing her counsel's conscious indifference to the trial setting, and her oral motion for continuance was properly denied for lack of verification. The awards for child support and attorney's fees to the father were also upheld.

Child Support ModificationConservatorship DisputesAppealsDenial of New TrialDenial of ContinuanceParental AlienationBest Interest of ChildTexas Family CodeAttorney's Fees AwardMootness Doctrine
References
31
Case No. 01-22-00396-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2024

In Re C.J.S., a Child v. the State of Texas

This case is an appeal from a default final order in a child custody and paternity suit involving C.J.S. The father, Zach, appealed the Texas trial court's decision, which established jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, appointed joint managing conservators, awarded primary conservatorship to the mother, Victoria, and ordered supervised visitation for Zach. Zach also sought to set aside the default judgment due to his attorney's mistaken advice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction and its orders regarding conservatorship and possession, finding Texas was C.J.S.'s home state. However, the court reversed and remanded the awards of attorneys' fees and appellate fees to Victoria due to insufficient evidentiary support.

UCCJEAChild CustodyHome State JurisdictionDefault JudgmentAttorney FeesAppellate FeesParental RightsPaternityConservatorshipSupervised Visitation
References
116
Case No. 07-13-00372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2015

in the Matter of the Marriage of Stephenie McDaniel and Andrew Stuart McDaniel and in the Interest of A.G.D.M., a Child

Andrew Stuart McDaniel, a federal prisoner, appealed pro se from a final divorce decree. The trial court granted a divorce, divided the marital estate, and designated Stephenie McDaniel as the managing conservator of their child. McDaniel raised seven complaints on appeal, including denial of due process, failure to consider statutory factors for conservatorship, failure to execute findings of fact and conclusions of law, failure to rule on motions, unequal division of the marital estate, denial of spousal support, and judicial misconduct. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on due process, spousal support, property division, child's best interests, or judicial conduct. The court noted McDaniel's failure to preserve certain complaints for review and found that ample evidence supported the trial court's decisions.

DivorceChild CustodyMarital Estate DivisionDue ProcessSpousal SupportJudicial MisconductAppellate ReviewPro Se AppealParental RightsTexas Family Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. 02-15-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

in the Interest of A.P., a Child

This is an appeal from a trial court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father to their child, Timmy (A.P.). Mother and Father challenged the termination, arguing issues of involuntary relinquishment, ineffective assistance of counsel, and that termination was not in the child's best interest. The Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence of parental drug use, criminal history, mental health issues, and an unstable home environment, leading to the child's removal multiple times. Both parents eventually signed affidavits of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, which they later attempted to revoke, claiming duress or ineffective assistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying new trials and that the signed relinquishment affidavits were sufficient to support the best interest finding for the child.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyAffidavit of RelinquishmentIneffective Assistance of CounselDuressChild Best InterestDrug UseCriminal HistoryMental HealthAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 06-10-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

in the Interest of B. G. M., a Child

Bud and Rhonda Marks appealed a trial court's judgment that removed their child, B.G.M., from their conservatorship and appointed Sally Tarter as the sole managing conservator. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) initiated the suit due to concerns about B.G.M.'s physical health, emotional development, and educational neglect. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of evidence, which included medical neglect, unsanitary living conditions, lack of education, and B.G.M.'s stated fear of her father. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that appointing the parents as managing conservators would significantly impair B.G.M.'s physical health or emotional development. The appellate court also concluded that while the admission of an investigator's affidavit was erroneous, it did not cause an improper judgment given the other substantial evidence.

Child conservatorshipParental rightsChild neglectEmotional impairmentPhysical impairmentEducational neglectMedical neglectBest interest of childSufficiency of evidenceAbuse of discretion
References
16
Case No. 2-06-409-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2007

in the Interest of A.M.S.S., a Child

Appellant Lola S. appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial, asserting an abuse of discretion in terminating her parental rights to her child, A.M.S.S. Lola S. did not appear for trial, claiming she did not receive written notice due to a change of address, though her counsel confirmed she was informed. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) presented a history of Lola S.'s endangering conduct towards her other child and other criminal acts. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Lola S. endangered the child's well-being and that termination was in the child's best interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild WelfareTexasDefault JudgmentEvidence Admissibility
References
4
Case No. 14-15-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2015

in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child

This is an appellant's brief challenging the termination of parental rights of C.B. to her child, K.I.B.C. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the case due to concerns about neglectful supervision and domestic violence. After an initial conservatorship order, the trial court later terminated C.B.'s parental rights based on Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(E) and (O). C.B. argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds and that the termination was not in K.I.B.C.'s best interest, requesting a reversal and remand.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDomestic ViolenceParental Mental HealthNon-compliance with Service PlanChild's Best InterestTexas Family Code 161.001
References
21
Case No. No. 11-08-00293-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 6436-CX
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

in the Interest of S.N., a Child

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating a father's parental rights to his child, S.N. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination proceedings after S.N. and S.M. were removed from the home due to allegations of appellant's abuse towards S.M. and drug use by the parents. The appellant, the father of S.N., pleaded no contest to injury to a child and was sentenced to fifteen years confinement. The trial court terminated his parental rights based on findings that he engaged in criminal conduct resulting in his confinement for over two years and was convicted of injury to a child. On appeal, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of Texas Family Code Ann. Sections 263.405(b) and (i), arguing they violated his due process and equal protection rights by restricting appeals for indigent parents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the statutes constitutional and that the appellant had not demonstrated a due process violation or presented a valid challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseDue ProcessConstitutional LawAccelerated AppealTexas Family CodeTexas Penal CodeIndigent ParentFrivolous AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,519 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational