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. 10-19-00325-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2019

in the Interest of H.J.Y.S., a Child

This case involves an appeal by Frederica (the mother) and Maria (the maternal aunt) from a judgment that terminated Frederica's parental rights to H.J.Y.S., a child, and modified the parent-child relationship. Frederica appealed on grounds of improper service, insufficient evidence for termination, and jury charge error. Maria appealed the modification, citing insufficient evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances and that it was not in the child's best interest. The appellate court found the evidence factually insufficient for termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) but affirmed the termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(N) (constructive abandonment) and the modification. The judgment of the trial court was modified to delete the finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(E) and affirmed as modified.

parental rights terminationchild conservatorshipfamily law appealTexas Family Codechild's best interestsubstituted service of processfactual sufficiency of evidenceconstructive abandonmentparental deportationalcohol abuse concerns
References
34
Case No. 05-18-01127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2019

in the Interest of R.M., a Child

Mother appealed the dismissal of her petition for bill of review, which challenged the 2016 termination of her parental rights to R.M. The trial court had dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, citing Texas Family Code section 161.211(a) as the petition was filed more than six months after the termination order. Mother contended that section 161.211(a) was unconstitutional as applied to her and that the trial court improperly granted intervention to R.M.'s adoptive parents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Mother failed to demonstrate the unconstitutional application of the statute to her specific circumstances. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the adoptive parents' intervention, as they held a justiciable interest in the case outcome.

Parental Rights TerminationBill of ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional ChallengeTexas Family CodeJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionMediated Settlement AgreementAdoptionPost-Termination Contact
References
35
Case No. 01-15-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children

This is an appellant's brief appealing the termination of parental rights for children A.G. and F.G., involving S.F. (mother) and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). DFPS intervened after reports of child neglect, including F.G. found unsupervised. The mother, S.F., has a history of mental health issues (depression, bipolar disorder), marijuana use, and unstable housing, and allegedly failed to comply with court-ordered service plans. The trial court terminated her parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), and (O), also finding it to be in the children's best interest. The appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination and the 'best interest' finding, emphasizing A.G.'s expressed desire against termination and potential instability in the children's current kinship placement with their godmother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectInsufficient EvidenceBest Interest of ChildSubstance AbuseMental Health IssuesKinship PlacementDomestic RelationsTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
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

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. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

in the Interest of V.A., V.A., and V.A., Minor Children

The Thirteenth District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, affirmed the termination of a biological mother's parental rights to her three minor daughters, V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.A.3. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) initially sued the mother, alleging conditions endangering the children and the mother's failure to comply with court-ordered actions for family reunification under sections of the Texas Family Code. A jury found statutory grounds for termination and that it was in the children's best interest. The mother appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the trial court's admission of alleged 'backdoor hearsay' testimony regarding drug use. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the mother failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan and that termination was in the children's best interest. The court also concluded there was no reversible error in the admission of the challenged testimony, as it was consistent with other admitted evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareTexas Family CodeFactual SufficiencyHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsUnstable Home EnvironmentSubstance Abuse
References
18
Case No. 01-15-00733-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2016

in the Interest of D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L., Children

Margarita Luna and Jason McDonald appealed a trial court order terminating their parental rights to D.R.L., C.L.W., Jr., and A.E.L. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the termination based on allegations of Luna's physical abuse, neglectful supervision, and physical neglect, alongside her history of drug abuse and non-compliance with her family service plan. McDonald's rights were terminated due to his failure to respond to citation and assert paternity for D.R.L. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the termination of Luna's parental rights was in the children's best interest. It also upheld McDonald's termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(1), which does not require a best interest finding for an alleged father who fails to respond to citation.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDrug AbuseNeglectPhysical AbuseFamily LawBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewDue ProcessConstitutional Challenge
References
48
Case No. 12-03-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2005

Lakeside Realty, Inc., Successor in Interest to Sunrise Construction, Inc. v. Life Scape Homeowner's Association

Lakeside Realty, Inc., as successor in interest to Sunrise Construction, Inc., appealed the trial court's denial of its request to clarify a previous order regarding the location of parking spaces for condominium units. The original declaratory judgment affirmed Sunrise's building interest in eight condominium units. A subsequent order (January 17, 2003) directed Sunrise to remove certain parking structures and restore common areas, but did not specify a new location for the appurtenant parking. Lakeside sought clarification of this order, which was denied on August 13, 2003. The Court of Appeals found that the requested clarification was a type of relief authorized by Section 37.011 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying it. Therefore, the court reversed the denial of further relief and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Declaratory Judgment ActFurther ReliefAbuse of DiscretionStanding to AppealCondominium LawProperty RightsAppurtenant RightsParking DisputesTrial Court Order ClarificationAppellate Jurisdiction
References
13
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. 14-15-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2015

in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child

This is an appellant's brief challenging the termination of parental rights of C.B. to her child, K.I.B.C. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the case due to concerns about neglectful supervision and domestic violence. After an initial conservatorship order, the trial court later terminated C.B.'s parental rights based on Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(E) and (O). C.B. argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds and that the termination was not in K.I.B.C.'s best interest, requesting a reversal and remand.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDomestic ViolenceParental Mental HealthNon-compliance with Service PlanChild's Best InterestTexas Family Code 161.001
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 7,229 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