Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2024 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Asgreen2 sentences2023The trial court’s appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator may be considered a “consequence of the termination pursuant to Family Code section 161.207.” In re A.S., 261 S.W.3d 76, 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). 2022The trial court’s appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator may be considered a “consequence of the termination pursuant to Family Code section 161.207.” In re A.S., 261 S.W.3d 76, 92 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). | 7 | 14 |
in the Interest of N.T., a Childgreen2 sentences2024However, as this Court has previously explained, because we have overruled Mother’s challenge to the termination of her parental rights, “the trial court’s appointment of the Department as sole managing conservator may be considered a –14– ‘consequence of the termination pursuant to Family Code section 161.207.’” In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d 465, 481 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citations omitted); see also TEX. 2024Father has not established harm from the trial court’s refusal to submit Grandmother as a choice for managing or possessory conservatorship in the jury charge because, given the jury’s - 12 - affirmative findings regarding termination, the jury did not reach conservatorship questions, and the appointment of the Department as managing conservator “may be considered a consequence of the termination pursuant to Family Code section 161.207.” In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d 465, 480 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.) (citation omitted); see also In re S.C., No. 02-18-00422-CV, 2019 WL 2455612 , at *14 (Tex. A | 4 | 7 |
In Re DNCgreen2 sentences2021P. 47.1 16 statutory mechanism for the Department’s appointment was as a consequence of the termination pursuant to section 161.207.” In re D.N.C., 252 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. 2008) (per curiam); see TEX. 2008Id. at 318 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.