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. 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. 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. NO. 14-19-00986-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

in the Interest of A.V.T.R., a Child

Andrew Rose (Father) appealed a trial court's order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning A.V.T.R., his child with Joann Taylor (Mother). Father sought to modify an existing mediated settlement agreement, alleging a material and substantial change in circumstances due to Mother's accusations of child neglect and sexual abuse. The trial court denied Father's motion to modify and ordered him to pay outstanding amicus attorney's fees. On appeal, Father challenged the exclusion of evidence during his motion for new trial hearing, the denial of his new trial motion, and the assessment of amicus attorney's fees. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion.

Child CustodyParental RightsModification of ConservatorshipChild Neglect AllegationsSexual Abuse AllegationsAmicus Attorney FeesMotion for New TrialExclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
40
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. 02-13-00052-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. E2002-00994-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2003

State ex rel. Jennifer Barnes v. Anthony Brandenburg

This case concerns an appeal regarding the modification of child support. The Mother, Jennifer Kamille Bond Barnes, sought to increase the child support obligation of the Father, Anthony Wayne Brandenburg. The trial court increased the Father's monthly child support from $430 to $473, applying a 10% increase based on an earlier order. The Father appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not using the most recent child support order as the basis for modification, as per the Child Support Guidelines. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court was justified in deviating from the guidelines. The appellate court noted the trial court's finding of insufficient evidence from the Father to establish a definite amount under the more recent, indefinite order, and thus it was proper to rely on the earlier, clear order. In the absence of an appellate record with a transcript or statement of evidence, the Court of Appeals presumed the trial court's factual findings were correct.

Child Support ModificationTennessee Child Support GuidelinesAppellate ProcedurePresumption of CorrectnessInsufficient EvidenceImputed IncomeFamily LawTrial Court Discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

In re Jeaniya W.

The Family Court, Bronx County, issued an order based on a fact-finding determination that the respondent father neglected his child. The court ordered the child released to her mother's custody under 12 months of supervision by the Administration for Children’s Services. The respondent was granted visitation and ordered to complete certain services and refrain from domestic violence in the child's presence. The finding of neglect was supported by evidence showing the father struck the mother multiple times in the child's presence, causing significant injuries. The child consistently reported witnessing the abuse, and the court found she was at imminent risk of harm and suffered emotional harm.

Child NeglectDomestic ViolenceChild CustodySupervision OrderVisitation RightsEmotional HarmFact-Finding DeterminationPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActCredibility Determinations
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. 11-24-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2024

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

This case involves the appeal of a final order terminating the parental rights of the mother and father to their child, D.K. The child tested positive for methamphetamine and THC at birth due to the mother's drug use. Both parents were uncooperative with the Department of Family and Protective Services, failing to provide identifying information or engage in required services. The father, in particular, had sporadic contact, was incarcerated at various times, and did not complete his service plan. He failed to appear at the final hearing, citing transportation issues, and his request to appear electronically was denied by the trial court, which emphasized the importance of physical presence for credibility assessment. The appellate court affirmed the termination for both parents, deeming the mother's appeal frivolous and finding no preserved due process violation for the father, nor any merit to his claim.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDue Process ViolationAppellate ProcedureSubstance AbuseChild NeglectCourtroom AppearanceFrivolous AppealAnders BriefBest Interest of Child
References
39
Case No. 05-19-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

in the Interest of M.M., a Child

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a suit to terminate Father’s parental rights concerning his minor child, M.M., which the trial court granted after a jury trial. Father appealed, raising six issues, including alleged violations of Family Code deadlines, ineffective assistance of counsel, an erroneous denial of an intervenor's motion, and improper admission of his murder conviction. The Court of Appeals overruled all of Father's issues, finding no violation of Family Code deadlines, no ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of standing for the intervenor's issue, and no abuse of discretion in admitting the conviction. The court also determined that Father failed to preserve his evidentiary sufficiency challenges regarding the jury's findings on M.M.'s best interest and the Department's appointment as managing conservator. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Protective ServicesIneffective Assistance of CounselFamily Code DeadlinesRule 11 AgreementIntervention PetitionCriminal Conviction AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildEvidentiary SufficiencyManaging Conservatorship
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,973 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