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. 02-13-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2013

in the Interest of P.J., Jr., a Child

Mother appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) regarding her son, P.J. Jr. Father filed the SAPCR petition after Mother and Father separated, alleging family violence and requesting supervised visitation, child support, and injunctive relief. Mother defaulted by not filing an answer or appearing at the initial hearing. The trial court granted Father immediate possession of Junior and ordered supervised visitation for Mother and child support. Mother's motion for new trial was denied because she failed to show that her failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent and did not set up a meritorious defense. The appellate court also addressed Mother’s arguments regarding Father's standing to establish paternity and the scope of relief granted, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Family LawChild CustodyParental RightsDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialPaternityDue ProcessAppellate ReviewFamily ViolenceSupervised Visitation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04295
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2025

Matter of R.A. (A.R.)

This case addresses whether Family Court can order supervision by the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) over a nonrespondent parent who is already caring for their child when the child has not been removed from the home. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision to vacate an ACS supervision order. The court held that Family Court Act §§ 1017 and 1027 (d) do not authorize supervision of a nonrespondent parent in the absence of a court-ordered child removal. It also found ACS's stated policy of monitoring nonrespondent parents, particularly domestic violence survivors, to be unlawful and an unwarranted state intervention. The decision emphasizes the intrusive and potentially traumatic impact of ACS involvement and its disproportionate effect on marginalized communities.

Family Court ActChild NeglectDomestic ViolenceParental SupervisionNonrespondent ParentChild Protective ServicesState InterventionMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
18
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. 02-18-00379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2019

in the Interest of M.S., a Child

This case concerns an appeal by Mother and Father from a trial court's order terminating their parental rights to their daughter, M.S. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination proceedings following reports of neglectful supervision and M.S. testing positive for methamphetamine at birth. Mother, who is HIV positive, also exhibited inconsistent medical care for M.S. and used illegal drugs. Both parents refused mandated drug testing and faced investigations for forgery. They signed irrevocable affidavits of relinquishment for M.S. during the trial. Subsequently, they argued the affidavits were involuntary, obtained under duress and coercion, claiming they were pressured to sign to preserve their relationship with their other child, A.G. Father made similar claims regarding his affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that the affidavits were signed voluntarily and without duress or coercion.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseMedical NeglectAffidavit of RelinquishmentDuress and CoercionVoluntary ConsentAppellate ReviewFamily LawChild Protection
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,262 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