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. 03-18-00556-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2018

K. J. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

K.J. appealed the trial court's decision to terminate her parental rights to her children, T.G. and K.D.J., raising several issues including alleged due process violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and insufficient evidence to support the termination. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's order. The appellate court found no due process violations, noting K.J. was represented by counsel, failed to file an affidavit of indigence, and waived her right to a jury trial by not making a timely demand. It also concluded there was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for continuance or evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the termination grounds, specifically child endangerment due to K.J.'s drug use, relationship with an individual with a history of family violence, non-compliance with court-ordered services, and other actions creating instability for the children, all contributing to a finding that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentSufficiency of EvidenceTrial by Jury WaiverContinuance DenialDrug UseFamily ViolenceCourt Order Violation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley EE.

Petitioner initiated a proceeding to declare respondent a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS) due to excessive school absences, tardiness, insubordination, and a physical altercation. Initially, the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) for six months, subject to conditions like regular school attendance and therapy. When respondent allegedly violated these conditions, petitioner moved to restore the PINS petition. The Family Court subsequently found respondent to be a PINS and placed her in the custody of the Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services for 12 months. Respondent appealed, challenging the Family Court's jurisdiction and the adjournment of the dispositional hearing. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Family Court maintained jurisdiction and that the adjournment, consented to by respondent's counsel, did not warrant dismissal.

PINS ProceedingTruancyInsubordinationSchool SuspensionAdjournment in Contemplation of DismissalFamily Court JurisdictionDispositional HearingAppellate ReviewJuvenile Delinquency
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1997

In re Brian E.

This case details an appeal from a Family Court order that adjudicated the respondent as a person in need of supervision (PINS). The adjudication stemmed from the respondent's admission of facts regarding school and behavioral issues, leading to a consented placement with the Ulster County Department of Social Services. Respondent's counsel sought to be relieved from representation, arguing the absence of nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The court, upon review, agreed with counsel's assessment and granted the application to withdraw. Consequently, the Family Court's original order was affirmed.

Person in Need of SupervisionPINSFamily Court Act Article 7Counsel WithdrawalFrivolous AppealUlster CountyAppellate DivisionChild SupervisionBehavioral ProblemsSchool Problems
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Costanzo v. Costanzo

The petitioner sought an upward modification of child support and counsel fees. The Family Court of Niagara County denied the petitioner’s objections to a Hearing Examiner’s order. The appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the petitioner that the Hearing Examiner erred by not including the respondent’s lump sum workers’ compensation and Social Security benefits when calculating income. The matter has been remitted to Family Court to redetermine child support based on an accurate calculation of the respondent's income and to address the petitioner's entitlement to counsel fees.

Child SupportUpward ModificationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security BenefitsIncome CalculationCounsel FeesFamily CourtAppellate ReviewReversalRemittal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lakiya S. Onya S.

The mother appealed from two orders of the Family Court, Queens County, which reduced her visitation with her children and extended their foster care placement. The appellate court reversed the orders, finding several errors by the Family Court. Specifically, uncertified psychotherapy summaries were improperly admitted into evidence, and the Family Court exhibited hostility towards the mother. Additionally, the Family Court erred by converting a visitation hearing into an extension of placement hearing without proper notice to the mother and her counsel. The case was remitted to the Family Court for a new hearing before a different judge.

Child Protective ProceedingsFamily Court ActVisitation RightsFoster Care PlacementEvidentiary RulesPsychotherapy SummariesJudicial HostilityDue ProcessNotice RequirementSexual Abuse Allegations
References
0
Case No. 03-22-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Stephanie Muth, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. PFLAG, Inc. and Adam Briggle and Amber Briggle, Individually and as Parents and Next Friends of M.B., a Minor

This appeal concerns temporary injunctions issued against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner. The injunctions prevent DFPS from investigating parents for child abuse solely based on providing gender-affirming medical care to minors, a policy adopted following an Attorney General opinion and Governor's directive. The Court affirmed the injunctions, finding that the appellees (families with transgender children and PFLAG, Inc.) had standing, their claims were ripe and not moot, and sovereign immunity was waived. The court concluded that DFPS's policy constituted an invalid rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, adopted without proper procedures, and interfered with fundamental parental and children's constitutional rights.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse investigationAdministrative Procedure ActParental rightsConstitutional rightsStandingRipenessMootnessSovereign immunityTexas law
References
28
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 3,301 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