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

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. 02-18-00299-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

in the Interest of T.F., T.F., and T.F., Children

Appellant Rita Ford appealed the denial of her motion for new trial, seeking relief from a default order issued against her in favor of appellee Chris Ford regarding conservatorship, child support, medical support, and visitation. Rita failed to appear for a hearing due to an adverse reaction to newly prescribed medications. The appellate court applied the three-part Craddock test, finding Rita provided sufficient, uncontroverted evidence that her failure to appear was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, she had a meritorious defense concerning the children's best interest, and a new hearing would not cause undue delay or prejudice. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Rita's motion for new trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Motion for New TrialDefault JudgmentChild ConservatorshipChild Support EnforcementParental VisitationCraddock Test ApplicationAppellate ProcedureFamily Law DisputeJudicial DiscretionMedical Incapacity Defense
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.K.

Mustofa K Khandokar appealed the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, E.A.K., after a jury found grounds for termination and that it was in the child's best interest. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay documents, including child outcry statements, without proper foundation or reliability. These evidentiary errors were deemed harmful, likely leading to an improper judgment. Despite finding legally sufficient evidence on one ground for termination and the child's best interest based on properly admitted evidence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Outcry StatementsEvidentiary ErrorHarmless Error AnalysisLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of Child
References
0
Case No. 01-15-00556-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2015

in the Interest of S. R.- M. C.

R.A.C., Sr. (Appellant) filed an appeal against the Department of Family and Protective Services (Appellee) seeking reversal of a judgment that terminated his parental rights to his child, S.R.-M.C. The initial judgment was entered on June 2, 2015, by the 313th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds, specifically constructive abandonment under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(N) and the finding that termination was in the child's best interest under Section 161.001(2). He contends that the Department did not make reasonable efforts for reunification and that he lacked resources to maintain contact or provide a safe environment. The brief concludes with a prayer for the Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on conservatorship.

child protectionparental rightstermination of parental rightsappealTexas family lawHarris Countyconstructive abandonmentbest interest of childlegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiency
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

In the Interest of J.F.C.

This dissenting opinion addresses a parental-rights-termination case where the central issue is whether appellate courts can review unpreserved jury-charge errors under the common-law doctrine of fundamental error in Texas. Justice Hankinson argues for the application of fundamental error review, particularly when significant public interests, such as the "best interest of the child" as articulated in Texas statutes and caselaw, are involved. She identifies the trial court's jury charge, which omitted instructions on the children's "best interest," as erroneous. However, she disagrees with the court of appeals' finding that this error was harmful, citing overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting termination based on the children's best interest. She also concludes that broad-form jury questions did not violate due process. Justice Hankinson dissents from the majority's opinion and judgment, criticizing its avoidance of the fundamental error review issue and its incorrect finding of harmful error, which led to the reversal and remand of the trial court's judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessFundamental ErrorJury Charge ErrorError PreservationAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildTexas Family LawDissenting OpinionCivil Procedure
References
80
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
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. 07-07-0126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

in the Interest of M.D., a Child

Natasha and Timothy appealed the termination of their parental rights to their son, M.D. Their appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the child's best interest, and argued due process violations concerning the requirement to file a statement of points within fifteen days. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the parents' arguments on sufficiency of evidence, best interest, and public policy were not preserved due to untimely filing of the statement of points. Additionally, the court rejected their claims that the fifteen-day filing requirement for a statement of points violated their federal and state due process rights.

Parental RightsDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceChild WelfareTexas Family LawStatement of PointsTimelinessAffirmationParental Rights Termination
References
31
Case No. 2-09-140-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2010

in the Interest of B.J., a Child

Appellant J.J. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her daughter B.J. The trial court found J.J. had knowingly placed or allowed B.J. to remain in conditions that endangered her physical or emotional well-being and that termination was in B.J.'s best interest. Evidence included B.J.'s diagnosis of cellulitis and failure to thrive due to undernourishment and malnutrition, J.J.'s poor hygiene, irregular medication use for bipolar disorder, belligerent conduct in the hospital, failure to comply with CPS service plans (personal counseling, drug assessment, parenting classes), unstable housing and employment, and continued marijuana use despite deferred adjudication community supervision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the endangerment and best interest findings, and overruled J.J.'s constitutional challenges.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFailure to ThriveChild Protective ServicesBest Interest of ChildEvidentiary SufficiencyFamily LawTexasAppealMedical Neglect
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,955 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