Divorce proceedings involving children can become contentious battlegrounds where accusations fly and emotions run high. But what happens when allegations of child abuse made during a divorce are later determined to be false and malicious? The October 2025 decision in V.L. v. L.L. (No. 08-24-00220-CV) from the El Paso Court of Appeals provides essential guidance for anyone navigating these treacherous waters. Per the published opinion, this case demonstrates why working with an experienced Dallas divorce attorney is critical when your divorce involves serious allegations that could give rise to separate legal claims.
For Dallas-area residents considering divorce, this case highlights how accusations made to Child Protective Services (CPS) and state licensing agencies can expose the accusing party to significant civil liability, and how the person accused can pursue damages for malicious prosecution. Understanding these dynamics can help you protect yourself whether you’re facing false allegations or considering whether to report suspected abuse. A Dallas family law attorney can help you navigate these sensitive issues with both strategic clarity and appropriate caution.
Case Background: Allegations, Investigations, and Counterclaims
The underlying dispute arose from a divorce between V.L. and L.L. in El Paso County, Texas, which began in 2021. During the contentious divorce proceedings, V.L. made allegations to both CPS and the Texas Health and Human Services (HHS) Daycare Licensing division concerning L.L. and his brother La.L., who operated a daycare facility called Three R’s Schools. The allegations were serious and potentially devastating to the accused parties: V.L. reported that her child had been found crying in a restroom, claiming physical abuse by both his father and uncle. These allegations triggered formal investigations that would have profound consequences for all parties involved.
L.C., the Daycare Licensing investigator, testified about the specific claims V.L. made during his investigation. These included detailed allegations that both L.L. and L.L. had inappropriately touched the child. The gravity of such allegations in a childcare context cannot be overstated, they strike at the core of professional reputation and livelihood. The investigations resulted in temporary orders that restricted L.L. from seeing his children and kept L.L. away from the daycare business for approximately six months, causing substantial personal and economic harm during the investigation period.
Following these investigations, both L.L. and L.L. filed separate claims against V.L. for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of both brothers on their malicious prosecution claims, awarding L.L. $25,000 in mental anguish damages. V.L. appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting these verdicts. When facing similar cross-claims in your divorce, having the best divorce lawyer in Dallas on your side ensures proper documentation and strategic positioning from day one.
Legal Analysis: What the Court Examined
Elements of Malicious Prosecution Under Texas Law
Under Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 207 (Tex. 1996), a plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution must establish several elements: the institution or continuation of civil proceedings against the plaintiff; by or at the insistence of the defendant; termination of those proceedings in the plaintiff’s favor; lack of probable cause; malice in commencing the proceedings; and special damages. The appellate court’s analysis focused primarily on whether the evidence supported findings on the first, second, and sixth elements, particularly the requirement of “special damages.” A skilled Dallas divorce attorney can help clients understand how these elements might apply to their specific circumstances.
The Special Injury Requirement: A Critical Distinction
Texas law requires plaintiffs in malicious prosecution cases to demonstrate a “special injury”, meaning some physical interference with person or property in the form of an arrest, attachment, injunction, or sequestration. As the court noted, citing S.M.D. v. B., 788 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, writ denied), ordinary losses from defending a civil suit—such as inconvenience, embarrassment, discovery costs, and attorney’s fees, are insufficient to support recovery.
This requirement created different outcomes for the two brothers. L.L. testified that he was kept away from his daycare business for almost six months as a direct result of the Daycare Licensing investigation initiated by V.L.’s complaints. The concurring opinion found this evidence legally sufficient to meet the special-injury requirement. In contrast, L.L.’s claimed injuries, being restrained from seeing his children and kept away from his home, arose from temporary orders in the divorce case itself, not from the CPS and Daycare Licensing investigations. This distinction proved fatal to L.L.’s claim. When consulting with a Dallas divorce attorney about potential malicious prosecution claims, understanding this special injury requirement is essential for evaluating whether you have a viable case.
The Judicial-Proceedings Privilege and Jury Charge Issues
One of the most legally significant aspects of this case involves the scope of the judicial-proceedings privilege. Under Texas caselaw, particularly R. v. G.L.I.C., 166 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tex. 1942), and L.I. v. A.L.D.F., 631 S.W.3d 40, 46 (Tex. 2021), this privilege extends broadly to proceedings before executive officers, boards, and commissions exercising quasi-judicial powers, including statements made in open court, pre-trial hearings, depositions, affidavits, and pleadings.
However, the jury charge in this case defined the privilege much more narrowly, limiting it solely to trial testimony. The concurring opinion emphasized a crucial procedural point: when a jury charge definition is not challenged, courts must assess the sufficiency of evidence based on the charge’s definition, not the legally correct definition. Because V.L. neither objected to this narrow definition at trial nor argued on appeal that it was incorrect, the concurring justice would have applied the charge’s limited definition.
This procedural nuance carries enormous practical implications. The lesson for anyone involved in child custody disputes is clear: careful attention to jury charge language and timely objections can dramatically affect case outcomes. An experienced Dallas child custody lawyer understands these technical requirements and their strategic importance.
Mental Anguish Damages: What Evidence Suffices?
The appellate court also addressed whether L.L. presented sufficient evidence to support the $25,000 mental anguish damages award. L.L. testified that the investigation made him feel “very embarrassed, very upset, very frustrated, and very, very sad.” He described the experience of discussing these accusations with colleagues as “horrible” and called it “the worst of the worst that can happen in daycare.” Telling his parents about the allegations made him feel “humiliated, mad, extremely sad,” describing it as “one of the most horrible experiences” he had to endure. He further testified about experiencing loss of sleep, weight loss, extreme duress, constant fear, and physical illness. His professional reputation was harmed, and he expressed ongoing fear about continued harassment and false allegations, stating the situation had persisted for four years without stopping.
Citing A. v. D., 550 S.W.3d 605, 620 (Tex. 2018), and G. v. C., 670 S.W.3d 546, 560 (Tex. 2023), the concurring opinion found this testimony legally sufficient to establish both the existence of mental anguish and support for the damages amount. These cases recognize the inherent difficulty in quantifying emotional injury and afford juries appropriate discretion in such determinations.
Good-Faith Immunity Under Texas Family Code § 261.106
Texas Family Code § 261.106 provides immunity from civil liability for persons who report suspected child abuse or participate in investigations in good faith. However, the statute explicitly excludes those who act with malicious purpose. Because malice is a required element in malicious prosecution claims, and because the jury found V.L. acted with malice, this immunity was unavailable to her. The intersection of these legal doctrines underscores why parents dealing with child support disputes and custody matters must understand both the protections available for good-faith reporting and the serious consequences of malicious accusations.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorce Cases
For Dallas-area residents facing divorce, this case offers several critical lessons that deserve careful consideration. First, allegations made to CPS and licensing agencies can create independent liability exposure beyond the divorce proceedings themselves, the accused party may have grounds for a separate lawsuit if the allegations prove malicious. Second, the “special injury” requirement in malicious prosecution cases requires more than emotional distress, there must be concrete interference with person or property arising directly from the allegedly malicious proceedings, such as being removed from a business or subjected to formal restrictions.
Third, attention to jury charge language and timely objections can be case-determinative; failing to object to an incorrect legal definition may bind you to that definition on appeal. Fourth, good-faith immunity for child abuse reporting under Texas Family Code § 261.106 does not protect those found to have acted with malice. Understanding these principles requires guidance from a knowledgeable Dallas child support lawyer who can evaluate your specific circumstances and help you avoid costly procedural missteps.
Strategic Insights: What This Case Teaches
This case demonstrates that alternative approaches at the trial level might have significantly affected outcomes. Timely objections to jury charge definitions, careful preservation of appellate issues, and thorough development of factual records all matter enormously in family law litigation. The distinction between L.L.’s successful claim and L.L.’s unsuccessful claim hinged on a technical legal requirement, the source of the special injury, that could have been addressed differently with careful case preparation.
Whether you’re facing false allegations or concerned about potential abuse, having experienced representation who understands both the substantive law and procedural requirements is essential for protecting your rights and your future. Those searching for a divorce attorney near me should prioritize attorneys with demonstrated appellate awareness and substantial trial experience in Dallas family courts.
Protect Your Rights with Experienced Dallas Family Law Representation
At the Law Office of Michael P. Granata, we bring over 25 years of Dallas family law experience to every case. As a trusted Dallas divorce attorney, we believe in providing honest assessments rather than false promises, combining strategic legal approaches with genuine compassion for clients navigating difficult family situations. Whether you’re facing allegations in your divorce or need to understand your rights regarding suspected abuse, we provide transparent communication about realistic outcomes. Clients searching for the best divorce lawyer in Dallas deserve representation that combines legal excellence with personal attention.
We serve clients throughout the Dallas metropolitan area, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville. If you’re considering divorce or currently involved in custody disputes, contact us for a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation to discuss your situation. Learn more about attorney Michael P. Granata and how our firm can help protect your interests during this challenging time.
