How cited: Harris v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services · Go Syfert

Harris v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (2007)

green · 43 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 23 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 3 citations in this opinion
See Lenz v. Lenz , 79 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. 2002); Harris v. Texas Dep't of Family & Protective Servs. , 228 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007, no pet.); Brunson v. Brunson , 502 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Civ.
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 3 citations in this opinion
See Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. 2002); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); Brunson v. Brunson, 502 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Civ.
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest determination includes current and future emotional and physical dangers to child and parental abilities of those seeking custody); Harris v. Texas Dep't of Family & Protective Servs. , 228 S.W.3d 819, 836 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007, no pet.) (same).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976) (best-interest determination includes current and future emotional and physical dangers to child and parental abilities of those seeking custody); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 836 (Tex.App.Austin 2007, no pet.) (same).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest determination includes current and future emotional and physical dangers to child and parental abilities of those seeking custody); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 836 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (same). 13 Furthermore, Cervantes lived in the same home with Murray and had thus observed him interacting with both children.
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See In re A.M.T., 592 S.W.3d 974 , 976 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2019, pet. denied); In re A.D., 480 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, pet. denied); Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Services, 228 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); In re C.E.R., 2022 WL 17332598 , at *4; In re L.M.R., 2020 WL 1695505 , at *2.
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
CODE ANN. § 105.002(c)(1)(A) (“[T]he court may not contravene a jury verdict on . . . the appointment of a sole managing conservator.”); Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 20 (Tex. 2002); Epps v. Deboise, 537 S.W.3d 238, 242 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Alexander v. Rogers, 247 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); Harris v. Tex. Dep’t. of Fam. & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 822 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); Corrales v. Dep’t. of Fam. & Prot…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
“Courts have developed best-interest tests that consider and balance many factors.” Id. (citing Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Tex. 2002); Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976) (“listing several non-exclusive factors for assessing child’s best interest”); Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 828 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.)).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Holley, 544 S.W.2d at 371-72 (Tex. 1976); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 836 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Lenz v. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d 10, 19 (Tex. 2002); See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 372 (Tex. 1976) (listing several non-exclusive factors for assessing child’s best interest); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 828 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
III, 423 S.W.3d 486, 492 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (appellant did not provide affidavit or other offer of proof to show that testimony was material). 5 No. 03-09-00387-CV, 2010 WL 5019411 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 10, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 828 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See, e.g., In re B.C.S., 479 S.W.3d 918 , 927–28 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, no pet.); Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 829 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (finding best interest of child was served by allowing father to raise him despite paucity of evidence about best interest due in part to denial of visitation).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
The proper focus . . . is solely upon whether the placement of the child with the natural parent would significantly impair the child’s physical health or emotional development.”); Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 829 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) 48 (noting child “comfortable” in non-parent home, but “has also been denied contact with his natural parent [for years], and this lack of contact is a result of [DFPS’s] decisions,” not parent…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See 2 These actions include voluntarily leaving the child in another’s possession without providing adequate support for at least six months, knowingly placing or allowing the child to remain in conditions or surroundings or with persons who endangered the child’s emotional or physical well-being, failing to support the child in accordance with their ability for a year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition, being the major cause of the child’s fa…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Harris v. Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 821-22 (Tex. 2005)).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Harris v. Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Servs. , 228 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007, no pet.) (citing City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 807, 821-22 (Tex. 2005)).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 822-23 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and Protective Svcs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 835 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 822-23 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris , 228 S.W.3d at 829 (trial court *90 erred in naming DFPS managing conservator where although child "comfortable" in non-parent home, he "ha[d] also been denied contact with his natural parent [for years], and this lack of contact is a result of [DFPS's] decisions ," not his parent's decisions (emphasis added)).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
“Jury findings underlying a conservatorship appointment are subject to ordinary legal and factual sufficiency review.” In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 , 617 n.5 (Tex. 2007); see Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819 , 822–23 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); Corrales v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 155 S.W.3d 478, 488 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004, no pet.).
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 829-30 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.); Hunter, 305 S.W.3d at 206 .
green In Re Mh (2010)
Cited · Tex. App. · signal: see
See Harris v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 228 S.W.3d 819, 829-30 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.); Hunter, 305 S.W.3d at 206 .