Y. A. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Appeal from 345th District Court of Travis County (concurring memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00342-CV NO. 03-22-00347-CV Y. A., Appellant v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NOS. D-1-FM-21-000228 & D-1-GM-20-002618, THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MAUZY, JUDGE PRESIDING CONCURRING OPINION I concur with the Court’s decision to affirm the trial court’s decrees terminating Father’s parental rights. Moreover, I agree with the Court’s well-reasoned conclusion that the evidence in the record is factually sufficient to support the trial court’s best-interest finding, if that analysis was necessary. See A.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., 577 S.W.3d 689, 697 (Tex. App.—Austin 2019, pet. denied) (stating that evidence is factually insufficient only if “disputed evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could not have resolved it in favor of the finding”). However, I would conclude Father waived the only issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s termination decrees on that basis. As the majority recognizes in footnote 4 of its opinion, Father has inadequately briefed the best-interest-finding issue, including only a few short paragraphs lacking either meaningful citations to the voluminous record or substantive analysis of the relevant evidence and legal authority. See In re L.E.R., 650 S.W.3d 771, 789 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (concluding parent waived challenge to bestinterest finding because conclusory analysis of Holley factors “presents no legal argument” (citing Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371–72 (Tex. 1976))); see also In re E.P., No. 10-22-00086-CV, 2022 WL 2977479, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco July 27, 2022, no pet.) (“Citations to the record and legal authorities are required in order to adequately present an issue on appeal.”); S.S. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22-00123-CV, 2022 WL 2500337, at *7 (Tex. App.—Austin July 7, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op) (“A brief must provide citations or argument and analysis for the contentions and failure to do this can result in waiver.” (quoting RSL Funding, LLC v. Newsome, 569 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Tex. 2018))). Accordingly, the sole issue on appeal was inadequately briefed and therefore waived, see Tex. R. App. P. 38.1, and this Court does not need to undertake its analysis of the record supporting the best-interest finding, see id. R. 47.1 (requiring opinions be “as brief as possible” and only address issues “necessary to final disposition of the appeal”). For this reason, I concur with the Court’s decision to affirm the district court’s termination decrees. __________________________________________ Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith Filed: November 29, 2022 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
