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. 14-20-00511-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

in the Interest of Z.A.R. A/K/A Z.R., a Child v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

This case concerns the appeal of the termination of Mother's parental rights for her son, Z.A.R. (Bobby). The trial court terminated Mother's rights based on findings of child endangerment due to her extensive drug use, unstable housing, and failure to comply with court-ordered reunification services. Mother consistently tested positive for illegal substances and did not maintain stable employment or housing, which led to an environment of uncertainty for Bobby. The child, removed at 1.5 years old and 2.5 at trial, was thriving in foster care and receiving necessary developmental therapies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence supporting both the endangerment findings and that termination was in Bobby's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentSubstance AbuseFamily-Service Plan Non-ComplianceChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFoster CareNeglectful SupervisionDomestic ViolenceUnstable Home Environment
References
29
Case No. 01-22-00964-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2023

In the Interest of S.C.M., a Child v. Department of Family and Protective Services

B.C. (Father) appeals the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his child, S.C.M. (Sarah). Father challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the predicate acts of endangering environment and conduct, as well as the finding that termination was in the child's best interest. The record shows Father had a felony aggravated robbery conviction and violated his community supervision by using illegal drugs and failing to report, leading to an eight-year prison sentence. Both parents had unstable housing and were involved in domestic violence. Father failed to comply with his court-ordered service plan, including requirements for stable housing, employment, drug testing, and visits. S.C.M. had been in foster care for over a year and was securely bonded to her foster mother. The appellate court affirmed the termination, finding sufficient evidence for the predicate acts of endangerment, constructive abandonment, and failure to complete the service plan, and that termination was in S.C.M.'s best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDomestic ViolenceParental IncarcerationFelony ConvictionProbation ViolationDrug AbuseUnstable Living ConditionsService Plan Non-ComplianceConstructive Abandonment
References
41
Case No. 01-08-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

In Re VV

This en banc opinion addresses the termination of Joe Lewis Valencia's parental rights to his minor child, V.V. The child was born with opiates in her system, and Valencia was incarcerated. The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) sought termination, alleging endangerment due to Valencia's extensive criminal history and lack of contact with the child. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence of endangerment and that termination was in the child's best interest. The court also addressed Valencia's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring a showing of prejudice.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentIneffective Assistance of CounselLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyCriminal HistoryIncarcerationDue ProcessFamily LawAppellate Procedure
References
68
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. E2009-02349-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2011

In Re: Demitrus M.T.

This wrongful death action was filed by the parents and brother of six-month-old Demitrus M. T. against the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging negligence by the Tennessee Department of Child Services (DCS). Demitrus drowned while in the care of Sherika Hamilton, who was designated as a placement caretaker in a DCS safety plan. The Claimants contended DCS was negligent for failing to investigate Hamilton's background and for not responding to a report of child endangerment against her. The Appeals Court affirmed the Claims Commission's jurisdiction over the 'care, custody and control' claim but reversed the admission of certain case recordings as hearsay. The court vacated the dismissal on the merits, remanding the case for a factual determination on whether DCS was indeed alerted to the child endangerment charge.

Wrongful DeathChild NeglectDCSForeseeabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Safety PlanCare, Custody, and Control
References
27
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. 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. 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. 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 1,530 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