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. 09-06-121 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

in Re Patricia Narvaiz

Patricia Narvaiz filed an original proceeding seeking to compel the judge of the 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, to transfer her Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) to Bexar County, Texas. Narvaiz, the mother, moved with the child to Bexar County in February 2003, while Roy Brown, the father, resided in Montgomery County. Brown filed his SAPCR in Montgomery County in August 2005, asserting the child resided there, despite Narvaiz claiming actual possession and residency in Bexar County at the time of filing. The trial court denied Narvaiz's motion to transfer venue, interpreting the Family Code's venue provisions for SAPCRs where parents reside in different counties and share possession. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision, focusing on the interpretation of

Venue TransferParent-Child RelationshipFamily LawChild CustodyActual PossessionBexar CountyMontgomery CountyMandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Family Code
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Narvaiz

Patricia Narvaiz seeks to compel the judge of the 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, to transfer a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) to Bexar County, Texas. Roy Brown, the real party in interest, filed the SAPCR in Montgomery County, claiming the minor resided with him. Patricia filed a motion to transfer venue, asserting the child lived with her in Bexar County. The trial court denied the motion, interpreting that venue could be based on shared possession, not strictly actual possession at the time of filing. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion, ruling that venue for an original SAPCR must be based on the parent having actual care, control, and possession of the child on the date the suit was filed. Therefore, the writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, compelling the transfer to Bexar County.

SAPCRMandamusVenue TransferChild CustodyTexas Family CodeActual PossessionJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParent-Child RelationshipRelator
References
8
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. 14-07-00311-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

in the Interest of K.A.C.O & J.C.C.O

This case involves an appeal from a post-answer default judgment and related rulings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). Appellant Patrick J. Combe-Ovadia contested the trial court's failure to set aside the default judgment, the striking of his amended pleadings and jury demand, modification of possession periods, issuance of permanent injunctions, determination of international child abduction risk, and attorney's fees award. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the default judgment and in striking the amended counter-petition and jury demand. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentPost-Answer DefaultParent-Child RelationshipSAPCRJury DemandSanctionsAbuse of DiscretionNew TrialInternational Child AbductionFamily Law Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.C.

This is an appeal concerning a child support order against Lorrie Lou McDonald in favor of Glenn Coterill, stemming from a divorce and a subsequent suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). McDonald challenged the trial court's order of 'child support arrearage' and its offset against a promissory note. The appellate court clarified that the trial court's separately filed findings of fact, which characterized the amount as 'lump sum child support', controlled over the judgment's use of 'arrearage'. Consequently, the court modified the trial court's order to reflect a lump sum child support award. McDonald's second issue regarding the impermissibility of the offset of child support was not preserved for appeal. The judgment was modified and, as modified, affirmed.

Child SupportAppealDivorce DecreeLump Sum Child SupportChild Support ArrearageFindings of FactConclusions of LawAbuse of DiscretionFamily CodeOffset
References
25
Case No. 03-19-00020-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2021

Mark Seiler v. Stacey Seiler

Mark Seiler appealed the trial court's decision to dismiss his divorce petition, which included a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) for their two minor children, on grounds of equitable forum non conveniens. Stacey Seiler had concurrently filed for legal separation and obtained protective orders in California. The trial court, after conferring with California judges and considering Stacey's evidence of domestic violence, found Texas to be an inconvenient forum and Riverside County, California, a more appropriate venue for custody determinations. Mark challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that sufficient evidence, particularly regarding domestic violence, supported the determination despite some unsubstantiated findings.

Child Custody JurisdictionUCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act)Forum Non ConveniensDomestic ViolenceDivorce ProceedingsTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceInterstate Custody Dispute
References
29
Case No. 09-09-00131-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

In Re KKC

This case addresses a mother's petition for writ of mandamus against a trial court's temporary orders in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). The real party in interest, a non-parent, sought joint managing conservatorship claiming standing through continuous residence with the child and mother. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont, examined the interpretation of "actual care, control, and possession" under Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.003(a)(9). It determined that mere co-residence and shared caretaking duties, without the biological parent relinquishing control, do not confer standing to a non-parent. Consequently, the appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the standing law and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the vacation of the temporary orders.

family lawchild custodystandingmandamusparental rightsnon-parentSAPCRTexas Family Codeactual care control and possessionliberty interest
References
30
Case No. 01-20-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2022

Shawna Nalley v. Raul Quevedo

The case involves Shawna Nalley (Appellant) appealing a default judgment granted in favor of Raul Quevedo (Appellee) in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). Quevedo sought to modify a child possession order, and Nalley failed to timely file an answer. The trial court granted a default judgment. On appeal, Nalley argued that her motion for new trial met the three Craddock requirements for setting aside a default judgment: her failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference but a mistake; she set up a meritorious defense; and granting a new trial would not cause delay or injury to Quevedo. The appellate court found that Nalley satisfied all three Craddock elements, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting her motion for new trial. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Parent-child relationshipChild custodyModification orderDefault judgmentCraddock requirementsMotion for new trialAbuse of discretionMeritorious defenseBest interest of the childUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
References
28
Case No. 03-21-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2021

in Re David O'Connor

Relator David O’Connor sought mandamus relief from a temporary order compelling him to pay $4,205 in attorney’s fees to Trish Ho in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). The trial court initially denied Ho's request for interim attorney's fees under Texas Family Code Section 105.001 but later ordered O'Connor to pay fees for "good cause." The Court of Appeals found no evidence presented by Ho demonstrating that the fees were necessary for the child's safety and welfare, as required by Section 105.001. The court also rejected the argument that the fees were sanctions or awarded under inherent judicial authority. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the portion of its order compelling attorney’s fee payment.

MandamusAttorney's FeesSAPCRFamily LawTemporary OrderAbuse of DiscretionInterim FeesTexas Family CodeSanctionsPrevailing Party
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 12 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