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. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sims v. STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, ETC.

This case challenges the constitutionality of several chapters (11, 14, 15, 17, 34) of Title 2, Texas Family Code, concerning child abuse reporting, emergency seizure of children, and termination of parental rights. The plaintiffs, the Sims family, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against the actions of the Harris County Child Welfare Unit. A three-judge district court was convened and found that abstention from federal intervention was not warranted due to the nature of the state action and the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge, which involved procedural irregularities and a lack of fair opportunity for hearing in state court. The court declared multiple sections of the Texas Family Code unconstitutional, particularly those related to notice, hearings, standard of proof, and appointment of counsel, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. However, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for monetary damages.

Child AbuseFamily LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessAbstention DoctrineInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefParental RightsChild WelfareState Intervention
References
35
Case No. 01-07-00584-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

DEPT. FAMILY, PROT. SERV. v. Dickensheets

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, challenging the constitutionality of Family Code section 263.401. DFPS contended that the statute's deadline for dismissing termination suits violated the Separation of Powers Clause by unduly interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.), affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the dismissal order was a final and appealable order. The court further ruled that section 263.401 is constitutional, distinguishing it from the unconstitutional Speedy Trial Act, because it allows for extensions, requires consideration of the child's best interest, and dismissals are without prejudice, thus not unduly interfering with DFPS's prosecutorial function. The statute's purpose is to expedite resolutions in child custody cases and provide stability for children.

Family LawChild Protective ServicesParental Rights TerminationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersAccelerated AppealStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeProsecutorial DiscretionJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. 01-05-00311-CV; 01-05-00312-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Lashonda Rochelle v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This case involves the termination of parental rights of Lashonda Montrie Rochelle to her five minor children by the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas. The Department of Family & Protective Services initiated the proceedings following reports of abuse to the eldest child, K.R., and concerns regarding the care of prematurely born twins, F.B. and A.B., and two other children, J.B. and J.P. The appellant challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for endangerment under Family Code § 161.001(1)(E) and the children's best interest. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient clear and convincing evidence of a course of conduct endangering the children's well-being and that termination was in their best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceDue ProcessSole Managing ConservatorshipAppellate ReviewFoster CareChild Endangerment
References
18
Case No. 01-11-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2012

L.M. and Y.Y. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This case concerns the termination of parental rights of L.M. and Y.Y. to their three minor children, I.M., L.M., Jr., and T.M. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the proceedings following allegations of domestic violence by Y.Y. against L.M., including a broken arm and sexual assault, which Y.Y. later recanted. The Department also cited L.M.'s failure to participate in a batterer intervention program. The trial court, incorporating jury findings, terminated parental rights based on findings of endangerment under Family Code subsections 161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O). L.M. and Y.Y. appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment findings and that any errors in admitting testimony were harmless.

Parental Rights TerminationDomestic ViolenceChild EndangermentTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewChild Protective ServicesSexual AssaultAbuse of Discretion
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of C.M.D.

LDS Family Services, a private adoption agency, appealed a trial court's sua sponte ruling that Texas Family Code section 161.002(b) is unconstitutional. This section allows for termination of parental rights without notice if an alleged father does not register with the paternity registry or take other steps to protect his rights. The case involved C.M.D., whose mother sought adoption and provided an affidavit indicating the father had not shown interest or support. The trial court deemed the statute unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the trial court's determination of unconstitutionality was not supported by the evidence, as no actual injury was shown to the unnamed father in this specific case, and an absence of evidence cannot overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

Adoption LawParental Rights TerminationPaternity RegistryConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeUnwed Fathers
References
26
Case No. 01-21-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Jaime Ramirez Guardia and Andrea Martinez- Flores v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Eighteen months after relinquishing their parental rights to two children, appellants Jaime R. Ramirez and Andrea Martinez-Flores filed a petition for bill of review to restore their parental rights, alleging their relinquishments were induced by fraud. The trial court dismissed the bill of review based on separate motions filed by appellees, the children’s adoptive mother A.C. and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. On appeal, appellants contended the trial court erred by dismissing the bill of review because appellees did not establish lack of jurisdiction or entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the petition for bill of review was untimely under Section 161.211(a) of the Family Code. Additionally, the court found that appellants lacked standing to challenge the conservatorship and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationBill of ReviewFraudulent InducementStatutory InterpretationDue Process ChallengeAppellate JurisdictionChild AdoptionFamily LawCollateral AttackTimeliness
References
30
Case No. 08-10-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2011

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Norma Parra

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit filed by former employee Norma Parra. Parra alleged retaliatory termination after filing for worker's compensation benefits. The Department argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been clearly and unambiguously waived under Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code. Citing Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing the case from Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman and asserting that the State Applications Act (SAA) continues to waive sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorker's CompensationStatutory InterpretationGovernment LiabilityAppellate ReviewPlea to JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeWaiver of Immunity
References
4
Case No. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Richard Leshin, Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, Trust A v. Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,941 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