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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burr v. Emmett

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody. The petitioner (father) sought sole custody of his child, Jessie, after the respondent (mother), who had primary physical custody, announced plans to relocate to California. The Family Court granted the father's petition, concluding that the relocation was not in the child's best interest due to existing family ties and the speculative nature of the mother's career aspirations. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the relocating parent bears the burden of proving the move is in the child's best interest, considering various factors related to the child's welfare and parental relationships. The court found no error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence or its ultimate decision to transfer custody.

Child CustodyCustody ModificationParental RelocationBest Interest of the ChildFamily Law AppealVisitation RightsChange of CircumstancesBurden of ProofAppellate AffirmationLaw Guardian Role
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2012

Hildebrandt v. Lee

The Family Court denied the mother's application to relocate to Texas with the minor child and granted the father's petition for modification of custody, awarding him sole custody with visitation to the mother. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests. The court considered the mother's and her parents' exclusionary behavior and hostility toward the father, which made it unlikely the father-child relationship would be preserved if relocation occurred. The court also rejected the forensic expert’s opinion due to deficiencies, including the mother’s prior violations of court orders by temporarily leaving the jurisdiction and permanently moving without proper notification. The mother's allegations of sexual improprieties by the father were also found unsubstantiated.

Child CustodyRelocation RequestBest Interests of ChildParental HostilityForensic Expert OpinionVisitation RightsFamily Law AppealNew York CourtsCustody Modification
References
5
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haussecker v. Childs

Joseph Haussecker, a former sandblaster, developed respiratory problems in 1967 and suspected silicosis, filing a worker's compensation claim in 1968, which was dismissed in 1972 due to lack of medical diagnosis. He was finally diagnosed with silicosis in April 1990. The Hausseckers then contacted attorney Jerry Childs for a product liability suit, but he advised them that the statute of limitations had run. They subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against Childs, alleging a fact question regarding the discovery rule's application to the statute of limitations for their silicosis claim. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Childs, finding a fact question exists as to when Haussecker, through reasonable diligence, should have discovered the permanent nature of his occupational disease.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleSilicosisOccupational DiseaseLatent Onset DiseaseSummary JudgmentNegligenceAttorney DutyMedical Diagnosis
References
25
Case No. 13-22-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2023

In the Interest of G.M.K., a Child v. the State of Texas

Jared appealed a trial court's order modifying his parent-child relationship with his child, G.M.K., and his child support obligation to Kathleen. Jared argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify child support, claiming a material and substantial change in circumstances due to his long-term disability and reduced income after two hip surgeries. He also asserted the trial court applied an incorrect standard and was biased. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Jared failed to provide sufficient evidence to accurately identify his net resources, thus failing to meet his burden to show a material and substantial change in circumstances. The court also found no reversible judicial bias.

Family lawChild support modificationAbuse of discretionNet resourcesBurden of proofJudicial biasAppellate reviewMaterial and substantial changeTexas Family CodeParent-child relationship
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 1,588 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