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.
31 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2023 3 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 CHgreen2 sentences2023These factors are not exhaustive, and it is not necessary that the Department prove all these factors “as a condition precedent to parental termination.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). 2023These factors are not exhaustive, and it is not necessary that the Department prove all these factors “as a condition precedent to parental termination.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002). | 7 | 28 |
Adams v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Servicesgreen2 sentences2013In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ; Adams v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 236 S.W.3d 271, 280 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). 2013In the Interest of C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ; Adams v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 236 S.W.3d 271, 280 (Tex.App. -- Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). | 6 | 6 |
in the Interest of A.C., a Childgreen2 sentences2016“There is no requirement that the Department prove all these factors as a condition precedent to parental termination, and the absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a 16 factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002)). 2015In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 641-42 (Tex. App. –Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex.1976). 17 However, “there is no requirement that the Department prove all these factors, and the absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the child's best interest.” Id. “[T]he prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child's best interest.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.307(a) (West 2008). | 2 | 2 |
In the interest of C.H.green1 sentence2016“There is no requirement that the Department prove all these factors as a condition precedent to parental termination, and the absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a 16 factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the child’s best interest.” In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 27 (Tex. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Servicesgreen1 sentence2012See In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services
green
2 sentences2012Walker, 312 S.W.3d at 619 (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ). 2012Walker, 312 S.W.3d at 619 (citing In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d at 27 ). | 6 | 2011–2012 |
Holley v. Adams
green
2 sentences2015In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 641-42 (Tex. App. –Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex.1976). 17 However, “there is no requirement that the Department prove all these factors, and the absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the child's best interest.” Id. “[T]he prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child's best interest.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.307(a) (West 2008). 2015In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 641-42 (Tex. App. –Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 , 371–72 (Tex.1976). 17 However, “there is no requirement that the Department prove all these factors, and the absence of evidence about some factors does not preclude a factfinder from reasonably forming a strong conviction that termination is in the child's best interest.” Id. “[T]he prompt and permanent placement of the child in a safe environment is presumed to be in the child's best interest.” Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 263.307(a) (West 2008). | 2 | 2013–2015 |
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.