in the Interest of J.Y., G.Y., and B.Y., Children, 528 S.W.3d 679

Department removed three elementary-aged children from mother (Geri) after investigations revealed neglect (inadequate food, utilities cut, unsanitary home), mental-health concerns, and refusal to cooperate with evaluations and services.
Children exhibited PTSD, trust/abandonment issues; therapist and CASA recommended no or highly restricted contact with Geri after several visits retraumatized them; one child did not recognize Geri as her mother.
Children placed with relatives and later foster/Nativ e American family; Geri's accusations against foster caregivers led to additional moves and cessation of contact.
Trial court appointed the Department permanent managing conservator and named Geri a possessory conservator but made visitation contingent on counselor recommendation or Department agreement; Attachment A simply said visitation "pursuant to the children’s counselor’s recommendation.”
Geri appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence for conservatorship, due process/equal protection (briefed inadequately), and vagueness/insufficiency of the possession/access terms. Court affirmed conservatorship decision but reversed and remanded for lack of specificity in visitation order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Geri)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for appointing Department managing conservator	Evidence did not meet required standard; conservatorship not supported	Evidence showed emotional/physical abuse, neglect, unstable home and mental-health concerns warranting Department custody	Court: No abuse of discretion; appointment supported and affirmed
Due process / burden of proof	Trial court should have applied clear-and-convincing standard; rights violated	Issue inadequately briefed; no legal authority shown	Court: Waived for inadequate briefing; claim overruled
Equal protection (visitation disparities)	Named father as possessory conservator despite nonparticipation; equal protection violation	Inadequately briefed and not preserved	Court: Waived for inadequate briefing; claim overruled
Specificity of possession/access order	Visitation order is vague and gives Department/counselor absolute discretion, effectively denying access without court findings	Department sought counselor discretion pending best-interest recommendation	Court: Order insufficiently specific as required by Tex. Fam. Code §153.006(c); reversed and remanded for explicit times/conditions (but conservatorship otherwise affirmed)

In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for conservatorship orders)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (scope of appellate abuse-of-discretion review)
Earvin v. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 229 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (reviewing conservatorship appointment of nonparent)
Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. 1990) (parental-presumption and proof that custody to parent would significantly impair child)
In re W.M., 172 S.W.3d 718 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (legal/factual sufficiency factors in abuse-of-discretion review)
Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. 1982) (abuse-of-discretion standard in possession orders)
In re Walters, 39 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001) (orders denying parental access must be rare; specificity required in possession orders)