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. 04-24-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2024

In the Interest of J.A.T., a Child v. the State of Texas

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of J.G. (Mother) to her child, J.A.T. Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the best interest finding. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination petition due to concerns of child neglect and Mother's substance abuse. The trial court terminated parental rights based on statutory grounds including constructive abandonment, non-compliance with court orders, and endangering the child through substance abuse. Mother repeatedly tested positive for various illegal substances and did not complete court-ordered drug recovery or mental health services. J.A.T., diagnosed with autism, showed behavioral issues that improved during placement with maternal grandparents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that termination was in J.A.T.'s best interest, citing Mother's ongoing substance abuse and failure to address her issues.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceAccelerated AppealSubstance AbuseDrug TestingMental HealthAutism Spectrum DisorderFamily Code
References
27
Case No. 06-19-00106-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2020

in the Interest of J.M. and L.M., Children

The Texas Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for Mother concerning her two children, J.M. and L.M. The trial court found statutory grounds for termination, including child abuse, neglect, and Mother's incarceration for family violence and drug offenses. Mother appealed, challenging the denial of a motion for continuance and the sufficiency of evidence regarding the children's best interests. The appellate court found Mother's procedural arguments unpreserved and upheld the trial court's determination that termination was in the children's best interests based on clear and convincing evidence of Mother's harmful actions and neglect. Additionally, Mother lacked standing to challenge the conservatorship determination after her parental rights were terminated.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseNeglectFamily ViolenceDrug OffensesBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceConservatorshipFoster Care
References
37
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. 01-16-00491-CV; 01-16-00535-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

in the Interest of J.R. and M.D.N.S.T., Children

This memorandum opinion concerns an appeal from the termination of parental rights for two children, J.R. and M.D.N.S.T., by the 314th District Court of Harris County, Texas. L.S. (Mother) and J.T. (Mary's Father) appealed the decision, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of evidence for modifying conservatorship, the statutory grounds for termination, and the best-interest finding. The appellate court found that the trial court maintained subject-matter jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence of a material and substantial change in circumstances to modify conservatorship. Specifically, the court affirmed the termination of Mother's rights based on her failure to comply with the court-ordered family service plan (Subsection O) and Father's rights based on his history of endangering conduct (Subsection E). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence adequately supported the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interest, considering their long stay in foster care, special needs, and the parents' non-compliance.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyFamily LawChild WelfareFoster CareAbuse and NeglectBest Interest of the ChildMaterial and Substantial ChangeFamily Service PlanAppellate Review
References
37
Case No. 13-01-156-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2001

in the Interest of S. Q., C. Q., F. Q., M. Q., and A. Q., Children

Laura Quitugua appealed the termination of her parental rights to her five minor children. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) initiated the termination due to the children living on the streets, alleged sexual abuse between siblings, and Quitugua's failure to complete a family-service plan. Quitugua did not provide suitable housing, remained with an abusive boyfriend, and failed to protect her children from harm. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence that Quitugua endangered the children's well-being and that termination was in their best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support both the statutory grounds for termination and the determination that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildAbuse of DiscretionMotion for New TrialDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 01-02-00807-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2006

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A/ Texas Workers' Compansation Ins. Fund v. Ray Ferguson Interest, Inc., RFI Brazos Paving Co., Inc.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (the Fund) appealed a judgment from a jury verdict in favor of Ray Ferguson Interests, Inc. (RFI), awarding RFI over $2.2 million in actual damages, $3.5 million in statutory damages for Insurance Code violations, and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from the Fund's investigation into RFI's workers' compensation premiums, alleging premium fraud related to RFI's subcontractor, Brazos. RFI counter-sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Insurance Code for the Fund's actions. The appellate court found errors in the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest to the Fund and in the jury's damage awards for 'lost time' due to litigation and for 'loss of value' or 'credit reputation' resulting from statements protected by judicial immunity or lacking direct causation to the Fund's alleged contract breaches or deceptive acts. Consequently, the court reversed RFI's recovery, affirmed parts of the judgment, and remanded the case with instructions, including entering a take-nothing judgment on RFI's claims.

Workers' CompensationInsurance FraudBreach of ContractUnfair Insurance PracticesTexas Insurance CodeJudicial ImmunityDamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestCausation
References
26
Case No. 13-10-00100-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2010

in the Interest of E. S. and A. G., Children

V.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to her two children, E.S. and A.G. The trial court's decision was based on findings that V.S. violated statutory grounds for termination, specifically by failing to comply with a court-ordered family service plan, and that termination was in the children's best interest. The children were removed from V.S.'s care after E.S. sustained severe, non-accidental burns, which medical experts concluded were consistent with head immersion in scalding water. V.S. initially lied about the circumstances to protect the children's father, A.U.G., and later pleaded guilty to hindering his apprehension. She also failed to complete required classes, evaluations, maintain stable housing, or consistent visitation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding both legal and factual sufficiency of evidence to support the termination of V.S.'s parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawTexas Family CodeSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of ChildService Plan Non-ComplianceDomestic ViolenceLegal Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1990

Long v. Mattingly

This case, an appeal from a motor vehicle collision damages action, focuses on the determination of interest due to plaintiffs Geneva I. Long and Raymond C. Long. Following jury verdicts and subsequent remittiturs, the Appellate Court further reduced the awards to $50,000 and $10,000 respectively. The defendants appealed the trial court's decision regarding post-judgment interest, arguing against its allowance from the original verdict date and claiming the appellate mandate lacked instructions. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling, clarifying that remittiturs are made by the successful party's waiver, not by court modification, thus entitling plaintiffs to statutory interest on their reduced judgments from the jury verdict date. Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' right to 'interest on interest' and denied their request for damages due to frivolous appeal, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment with interest accruing from November 29, 1990.

Motor vehicle collisionPost-judgment interestRemittiturJury verdictAppellate reviewStatutory interestTennessee lawDamagesFrivolous appealWaiver
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of M.C.R.

This case involves an appeal by the Attorney General challenging a district court's allocation of prejudgment interest on child support arrearages owed by Lisa Harris to Michael Riou. Initially, a child support master awarded the arrearages but split the accrued interest equally between Harris and Riou, seeking an equitable resolution. The district court adopted this ruling. The appellate court, finding the Attorney General had standing due to its role as a Title IV-D agency and an assignment of rights, determined that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify or reduce statutory prejudgment interest on child support arrearages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation to include all accrued interest.

child supportprejudgment interestchild support arrearagesstandingFamily Codeappellate reviewjudicial discretionequityTexas lawTitle IV-D services
References
28
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,806 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