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

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summers v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc.

The Attorney General initiated a lawsuit to dissolve two nonprofit public benefit corporations, Cherokee Children and Family Services, Inc. (CCFS) and Cherokee Children Nutrition, Inc. (CCN). The Attorney General alleged that the corporations had abandoned their charitable purposes and engaged in various forms of self-dealing, including excessive compensation to the executive director and her family, questionable real estate transactions, and problematic investments. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Attorney General, ordering dissolution and the appointment of a receiver. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the corporations were exploited for private monetary gain rather than serving public benefit, thus justifying their dissolution.

Nonprofit DissolutionCorporate GovernanceFiduciary Duty BreachPrivate InurementSelf-DealingPublic Benefit CorporationCharitable Purpose AbandonmentSummary JudgmentAttorney General ActionTennessee Corporate Law
References
51
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. 2-03-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

in the Interest of T.N. and M.N., Children

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order terminating the parental rights of J.N. (Mother) and S.N. (Father) to their children, T.N. and M.N. The parents appealed the termination, challenging the children's attorney's performance, trial court's rulings on challenges for cause, and the factual sufficiency of evidence regarding endangerment and the children's best interest. The court found Mother lacked standing for her complaints and failed to preserve other issues. For Father, the court upheld the admission of lay testimony and found sufficient evidence of endangerment due to his conduct, including leaving children with a substance-abusing grandmother and Mother, and their own domestic violence. The court also found sufficient evidence that termination was in the children's best interest, citing Father's instability and limited participation in recommended programs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyAttorney Ad LitemDue ProcessChallenges for CauseExpert TestimonyLay Testimony
References
21
Case No. 13-10-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2010

in the Interest of E. S. and A. G., Children

V.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children, E.S. and A.G. The trial court's decision was based on findings that V.S. violated statutory grounds for termination, specifically by failing to comply with a court-ordered family service plan, and that termination was in the children's best interest. The children were removed from V.S.'s care after E.S. sustained severe, non-accidental burns, which medical experts concluded were consistent with head immersion in scalding water. V.S. initially lied about the circumstances to protect the children's father, A.U.G., and later pleaded guilty to hindering his apprehension. She also failed to complete required classes, evaluations, maintain stable housing, or consistent visitation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the termination of V.S.'s parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-ComplianceDomestic ViolenceLegal Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. 02-13-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2013

in the Interest of A.D.C. and J.D.C., Children

This case concerns J.W.S. (Father)'s appeal of the termination of his parental rights to his two children, A.D.C. and J.D.C. The children were initially removed from Mother's care in November 2011 due to a violent domestic dispute and long-standing neglect. Father, despite prior knowledge of endangering conditions, failed to protect the children and did not consistently comply with court-ordered services, including a critical batterer's intervention program. The appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence that Father allowed the children to remain in dangerous surroundings and failed to meet his service plan obligations. The court also determined that termination was in the children's best interest, emphasizing their need for stability and specialized care which was provided by their foster family, in contrast to Father's unstable living situation and history of domestic violence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectDomestic ViolenceChild Protective ServicesSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildFamily LawAppellate ReviewFoster CareService Plan Non-Compliance
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

This case involves a plaintiff seeking damages for wrongful deprivation of child custody and social work malpractice against the Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children and Sister Rosalie Gilson. The court denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, affirming the viability of both causes of action. The plaintiff's attempt to amend the complaint by adding various religious organizations and an individual as new defendants was unsuccessful due to a lack of sufficient factual basis for their alleged involvement or supervisory capacity. However, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel the defendants to respond to a demand for insurance agreements.

Child Custody DeprivationSocial Work MalpracticeAmended Complaint MotionMotion to Dismiss ComplaintDiscovery OrderInsurance DisclosureRespondeat Superior LiabilityProfessional Misconduct AllegationsParental Rights InterferenceAgency Supervision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Bernstein

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a July 28, 1977, determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, which affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue her aid to dependent children grant. The Commissioner's decision was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to disclose biweekly support payments from her husband, a finding supported by his signed statement and an agency worksheet. However, neither the husband nor the agency worker testified at the fair hearing. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to refute the petitioner's testimony that she had not received support payments from her husband after February 1977. Consequently, the petition was granted, the determination annulled, and the case remitted to the State commissioner for a new hearing.

Public AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenFair HearingSufficiency of EvidenceSupport PaymentsDue ProcessAdministrative ReviewRemandSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78
References
3
Case No. 07-09-0101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2009

in the Interest of D.D.D.K., C.E.K., Jr. and C.E.K., Children

This case involves an appeal by Charles and Nancy from a final order terminating their parental rights to their three minor children. The appellants challenged the admission of hearsay statements regarding sexual abuse and the sufficiency of evidence supporting findings of endangerment and the children's best interest. The court heard extensive testimony about the children suffering multiple instances of sexual abuse, including by a relative and later by strangers in a motel, often while the parents were present and using drugs. All children tested positive for illicit substances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that the parents' conduct and the conditions they allowed endangered the children, and that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual AbuseDrug AbuseChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildTexas Family LawAppellate ReviewFoster Care
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,309 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