In re Interest of A.T.M.

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Vaughn

    No. 10-21-00167-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 24, 2024)

    Therefore, even though James failed to object about the trial judge's conduct in the trial court, we must address his complaint about such conduct if such conduct constituted fundamental error. See id.; see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *18-19 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  2. Debord v. State

    No. 13-21-00280-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    This is the third time we have held Judge Bell violated the rules of judicial conduct. See In re Marriage of Ramos & Shafer, No. 13-22-00061-CV, 2023 WL 3240787, at *11-12 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg May 4, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding Judge Bell engaged in an ex parte communication with appellant's criminal defense attorney but affirming because appellant failed to make a "clear showing" of judicial bias or partiality); In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *17- 19 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding Judge Bell made several improper comments but affirming because the record did "not reveal that the trial court developed any antagonism or bias against [appellant] based on prior proceedings in an unrelated case"). 3. Admonishment

  3. In re D.T.

    No. 13-21-00457-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 21, 2023)

    The trial judge has a duty to direct competent and material questions to a witness to clarify testimony or to elicit testimony that has not otherwise been brought out, and such practice is especially proper in a bench trial where the best interests of children are at issue. Sklar v. Sklar, 598 S.W.3d 810, 825 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.); see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *17 (Tex., App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Trahan v. Trahan, 732 S.W.2d 113, 114-15 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1987, no writ)) (holding the right to an impartial judge was not violated where the trial court asked more questions than either of the attorneys)).

  4. In re G.M.K.

    No. 13-22-00016-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2023)   Cited 3 times

    see Trahan v. Trahan, 732 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1987, no writ) (citing Stewart v. State, 438 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)); see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *19 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi- Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.).

  5. In re The Marriage of Ramos

    No. 13-22-00061-CV (Tex. App. May. 4, 2023)

    We observe that this is not the first time this Court has deemed it necessary to admonish this particular trial judge for violating the code of conduct in a family law case. See In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *17-19 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding trial court made several improper comments but affirming because appellant did not object at trial and the record did "not reveal that the trial court developed any antagonism or bias against [appellant] based on prior proceedings in an unrelated case").

  6. In re I.M.S

    679 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    See In re B.D.A., 546 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("The record demonstrates that [incarcerated parent] ha[d] not adequately cared for or supported the children and that he ha[d] made no arrangements for their care during his incarceration …. He did not make any efforts to produce some evidence as to how he would provide or arrange to provide care for the children during his incarceration."); see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *10 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  7. In re M.S.P.

    No. 13-22-00587-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 6, 2023)

    the cost and inconvenience of transporting the prisoner to the courtroom; the security risk the prisoner presents to the court and public; whether the prisoner's claims are substantial; whether the matter's resolution can reasonably be delayed until the prisoner's release; whether the prisoner can and will offer admissible, noncumulative testimony that cannot be effectively presented by deposition, telephone, or some other means; whether the prisoner's presence is important in judging his demeanor and credibility; whether the trial is to the court or a jury; and the prisoner's probability of success on the merits. In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165-66 (Tex. 2003); see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *8 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)

  8. In re H.A.

    No. 01-22-00106-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Holding father's testimony that family could provide for child "if need be" was insufficient to meet father's burden because father did not present any evidence of an agreement with another to provide care for child on father's behalf

    In re B.D.A., 546 S.W.3d 346, 358 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ("The record demonstrates that [the incarcerated parent] ha[d] not adequately cared for or supported the children and that he ha[d] made no arrangements for their care during his incarceration . . . . He did not make any efforts to produce some evidence as to how he would provide or arrange to provide care for the children during his incarceration."); see also In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *10 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("There was no evidence that any person had ever taken care of the child on [the incarcerated parent's] behalf in the past, nor was there any evidence that any person would be able to adequately care for the child on [the incarcerated parent's] behalf in the future."

  9. Johnson v. State

    No. 02-21-00094-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 30, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Although we cannot hear a judge's tone from a cold record, even a transcript can sometimes reveal a judge's questioning to be nothing more than an attempt to belittle or embarrass a witness rather than a sincere attempt at clarifying testimony. See, e.g., In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *19 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). In this case, however, C.F. was indisputably lying in either her hearing testimony or in her interactions with the 911 dispatcher and police officers on the night in question, and it fell to the judge to determine what version of her story was more credible.

  10. In re A.M.M.

    No. 13-21-00114-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 15, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    I would conclude that F.M.'s due process rights were not violated due to lack of access to and effective communication between F.M. and her trial counsel. See In re A.T.M., No. 13-21-00008-CV, 2021 WL 2584402, at *8 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding father's telephonic appearance, rather than personal appearance, did not "meaningfully deprive[] him of any constitutional right."). F.M.'s second issue should be overruled.