Court Opinion

ID: 9370571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-14 10:09:43.501785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:22.257687
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                      JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 2023

                                     NO. 03-18-00261-CV

          Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; Stephanie Muth,
   in Her Official Capacity as DFPS Commissioner; Texas Health and Human Services;
     Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as HHSC Executive Commissioner;
       Corrections Corporation of America; and The GEO Group, Inc., Appellants1

                                                v.

          Grassroots Leadership, Inc.; Gloria Valenzuela; E.G.S., for herself and
      as next friend for A.E.S.G.; F.D.G., for herself and as next friend for N.R.C.D.;
                Y.E.M.A., for herself and as next friend for A.S.A., Appellees

      APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
             BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH
    REVERSED AND VACATED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART ON REMAND --
                    OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the amended final judgment signed by the trial court on December 16,

2016. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was

reversible error in the portion of the judgment granting injunctive relief ordering the Department

to “continue to investigate and report any allegations of abuse or neglect, standards deficiencies,

or violations of rule of law at Karnes and Dilley during the pendency of any appeal of this

       1
         Pursuant to Rule 7.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the current
commissioners of the relevant agencies have been automatically substituted for the agencies’
former commissioners.
Court’s ruling.” Therefore, the Court reverses and vacates that portion of the trial court’s

amended final judgment. The Court further holds that there was no error in the remainder of

the judgment. Therefore the Court affirms the remainder of the trial court’s amended final

judgment. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and

in the court below.