In re C.F.

13 Citing cases

  1. In re C.C.E.

    No. 04-20-00416-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2021)   Cited 5 times

    In re V.I.P.M., No. 05-19-00197-CV, 2020 WL 1472210, at *1 (Tex. App.- Dallas Mar. 26, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 767 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). Taken together, Cline, In re V.I.P.M., and In re C.F. stand for the proposition that a single filing in the appellate court cannot be treated as both an original proceeding and a direct appeal.

  2. Garcia v. Ranft-Garcia

    No. 04-22-00415-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 20, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    "When reviewing a trial court's family law decision for an abuse of discretion, legal and factual insufficiency are not independent reversible grounds of error but are relevant factors." In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 773 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2019, no pet.).

  3. In re D.L.

    641 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    As the factfinder, the trial court could choose to believe all, some, or none of the evidence. In re C.F. , 576 S.W.3d 761, 774 (Tex. App.โ€”Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding). The factfinder may believe one witness and disbelieve others.

  4. Roisman v. Roisman (In re Roisman)

    651 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. App. 2022)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that contempt order was challengeable by writ of mandamus when trial court suspended contemnor's jail commitment conditioned on subsequent payment of child support arrearages and attorney's fees

    Because the obligation to pay child support is a duty, not a debt, a person may be held in contempt and imprisoned for failing to pay child support. In re C.F. , 576 S.W.3d 761, 770 (Tex. App.โ€”Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding) ; see TEX. FAM. CODE ยงยง 157.001, 157.166 โ€“.167. Medical support is a child-support obligation, TEX. FAM. CODE ยง 154.183, and it is also enforceable by contempt, C.F. , 576 S.W.3d. at 770.

  5. In re Roisman

    No. 01-20-00828-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 17, 2022)

    Because the obligation to pay child support is a duty, not a debt, a person may be held in contempt and imprisoned for failing to pay child support. In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 770 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding); see Tex. Fam. Code ยงยง 157.001, 157.166-.167. Medical support is a child-support obligation, Tex. Fam. Code ยง 154.183, and it is also enforceable by contempt, C.F., 576 S.W.3d. at 770.

  6. Breen v. Black

    2020 WY 94 (Wyo. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    Until he did so, the burden rested squarely on Father's shoulders. In re C.F. , 576 S.W.3d 761, 773 (Tex. App. 2019) ("The movant on a motion to enforce a child-support order, including an order to provide medical support, has the burden of establishing the amount of support owed." (citation omitted)).

  7. In re Loyd

    No. 02-24-00266-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 28, 2024)

    A person may be held in contempt and imprisoned for failing to pay child support because the obligation to pay child support is a duty, not a debt. In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 770 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding); see Tex. Fam. Code Ann. ยง 157.001(b) ("The court may enforce by contempt any provision of a temporary or final order.").

  8. In re J.R.

    No. 02-23-00071-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 18, 2024)   Cited 4 times
    Addressing issues raised in four argument sections of appellant's brief where appellant listed thirty-five issues but did not mention the listed issues in the argument section of her brief

    R.R.K., 2022 WL 1257136, at *4. In determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred because the evidence is legally or factually insufficient to support the trial court's decision, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) did the trial court have enough information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) did the trial court err in applying its discretion? In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 773 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, orig. proceeding &no pet.). The applicable sufficiency review comes into play in answering the first prong.

  9. In re D.R.

    No. 02-23-00093-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    However, the CASA did not testify. See In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 774 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (noting that a trial court may take judicial notice of the contents of its file, but it may not take judicial notice of the truth of any factual allegations contained in its file). Parents, on the other hand, testified that Diego was the aggressor who had attacked D.T. and B.R. at different times.

  10. In re R.R.K.

    No. 02-20-00302-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 28, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    In determining whether an abuse of discretion has occurred because the evidence is legally or factually insufficient to support the trial court's decision, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) did the trial court have enough information upon which to exercise its discretion; and (2) did the trial court err in applying its discretion? In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 773 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2019, no pet.). The applicable sufficiency review comes into play in answering the first prong.