Introduction: A Case with Implications Beyond Education Law
While the recent appellate decision in H.C., Inc. v. R. might initially seem disconnected from family law practice, it addresses critical employment protections that directly affect Texas families navigating divorce and custody matters. The Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District in Houston examined whether a charter school director could pursue a retaliation claim under Texas Family Code Section 261.110 after reporting suspected child abuse, a decision that raises important questions about workplace protections and family safety in Texas.
Per the published opinion, this October 2025 ruling demonstrates how courts interpret statutory protections designed to encourage reporting of child abuse and neglect. For Dallas residents contemplating divorce or custody disputes, understanding how the legal system treats child safety allegations is essential. When your family’s welfare is at stake, you need an experienced Dallas divorce attorney who comprehends not only the nuances of property division and custody arrangements, but also how employment law intersects with child protection statutes.
The case between H.C., Inc. and K.R. illustrates a fundamental tension in Texas law: balancing governmental immunity with the state’s strong public policy protecting children from abuse. This analysis explores what the court decided, why it matters, and what Dallas families should understand about protecting children while navigating employment and family law issues.
Case Background: The Facts Behind the Legal Battle
D.S. founded H.C., Inc., an open-enrollment charter school serving kindergarten through eighth grade students in Houston. K.R. held the position of Director of Operations, giving her significant administrative responsibilities within the school environment. In October 2022, R. witnessed an incident she found troubling. She observed S. causing a first-grade student to fall, and days later, she saw the same child holding his arm in pain and crying.
When R. inquired about the child’s condition, a colleague who had witnessed the original incident explained that S. had grabbed the child roughly by the arm, causing the injury. Reasonably believing she was witnessing potential child abuse, R. followed Texas law by reporting the incident to Child Protective Services without initially informing S. of her actions. The school’s principal, M., had similarly filed a CPS report regarding the same incident.
After learning about the CPS investigation, S. confronted both R. and M.. While M. ultimately cooperated with what the court described as S.’s “scheme to dispose of the CPS investigation,” R. maintained her position that reporting was the appropriate course of action. According to her pleadings, S. suggested that M. should make a material misrepresentation to CPS investigators and promised legal representation if she “got in trouble lying” to the agency. CPS closed its investigation on December 5, 2022, finding insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.
Approximately two months later, on February 13, 2023, S. terminated R.’s employment. R. sued H.C., Inc. for retaliation under Texas Family Code Section 261.110, alleging that her termination was retaliatory punishment for reporting suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. H.C., Inc. responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that as a charter school, it enjoyed governmental immunity that had not been properly waived. This procedural challenge set the stage for a critical question about who qualifies for statutory protection when reporting child abuse.
Legal Analysis: Understanding Government Immunity and the “Professional” Definition
The Framework: Governmental Immunity and Statutory Waivers
Texas law recognizes a doctrine called governmental immunity that protects governmental units from lawsuits seeking monetary damages. Open-enrollment charter schools, the court confirmed, qualify as governmental units entitled to the same immunity as traditional school districts under Texas Education Code Section 12.1056. This means that absent a statutory waiver, charter schools cannot be sued for damages, and trial courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims against them.
However, Texas Family Code Section 261.110 contains a narrow waiver of governmental immunity specifically designed to encourage reporting of child abuse and neglect. The statute prohibits employers from suspending, terminating, discriminating against, or taking adverse employment actions against certain individuals who report child abuse in good faith. Section 261.110(f) explicitly states: “Sovereign immunity is waived and abolished to the extent of liability created by this section.”
The critical limitation is that this protection extends only to “professionals” as defined by the Family Code. This definitional requirement became the battleground in R.’s case. The statute defines a “professional” as an individual who either: (1) is licensed or certified by the state, or (2) is an employee of a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state and who, in the normal course of official duties or duties for which a license or certification is required, has direct contact with children. The definition explicitly includes teachers, nurses, doctors, daycare employees, health care workers, juvenile probation officers, and detention or correctional officers.
The Court’s Statutory Interpretation
Justice Maritza Antú, writing for the court, applied standard rules of statutory construction to resolve whether R. qualified as a “professional.” The court acknowledged that while the term “professional” was statutorily defined, the phrase “a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state” required interpretation using common, ordinary meaning unless a more precise definition appeared in statutory context or the plain meaning would yield absurd results.
The court examined three components of the phrase: “licensed,” “certified,” and “operated by the state.” Applying dictionary definitions and legal precedent, the court determined that open-enrollment charter schools are neither licensed nor certified by the state. Instead, they operate under a charter, which functions as a contract between the charter holder and the Texas Commissioner of Education. The legislature has consistently designated specific facilities and occupations requiring licensure or certification, such as hospitals, birthing centers, child-care facilities, and professional nursing positions. Notably, the court pointed out that the legislature imposed no such requirement for charter schools.
The most significant portion of the analysis focused on the term “operated by the state.” Using grammatical analysis, the court explained that “operated” functions as a transitive verb in this context, meaning the state itself is performing the action of operating the facility. While open-enrollment charter schools are publicly funded and considered part of the Texas public school system, they are “privately operated.” The typical charter holder is a private, nonprofit organization, not a state agency.
The court noted that while the state exercises regulatory oversight through charter approval and revocation processes, it does not control day-to-day operations such as hiring personnel or directing instruction. Charter holders, not state agencies, make operational decisions. This distinction between public funding and private operation proved decisive. Because H.C., Inc. is publicly funded but privately operated, the court concluded it does not constitute “a facility licensed, certified, or operated by the state” for purposes of Section 261.101(b).
Practical Implications of the Decision
This holding creates a significant gap in protections. R., despite holding an administrative position within an educational institution serving children, does not qualify as a “professional” under the statutory definition because the charter school is not state-operated. Consequently, the governmental immunity waiver in Section 261.110(f) does not apply to her retaliation claim. Without this waiver, H.C., Inc.’s governmental immunity remains intact, and the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear her claims.
The court did not reach the secondary issue of whether R. had “direct contact with children” in her official duties as Director of Operations. Because the first prong of the two-part definition was not satisfied, that element became immaterial. The court emphasized that all elements of the statutory definition are required to invoke Chapter 261 protections.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Families
Understanding the Limitations of Child Abuse Reporting Protections
This case demonstrates that statutory protections for individuals reporting child abuse, while robust in many contexts, contain specific definitional limits. If you work in education, healthcare, daycare, or child protection services in a state-operated facility, Texas Family Code Section 261.110 provides significant protection against retaliation. However, employees in privately-operated facilities that serve children may find themselves in a legal gray zone.
For Dallas families, this raises important considerations during divorce and custody proceedings. If a parent or guardian is employed by a charter school, tutoring center, or other privately-operated educational facility, they should understand that statutory retaliation protections tied to child abuse reporting may not extend to those employers in the same manner they would at traditional public schools. When selecting schools or childcare for your children, knowing whether a facility is state-operated versus privately operated affects not only governance and accountability but also the legal framework surrounding child safety reporting.
The “Arm of the State” Does Not Equal “Operated by the State”
The court’s careful distinction between being an “arm of the state” and actually being “operated by the state” reinforces how Texas courts interpret statutory language precisely. While charter schools function as part of the public education system and receive public funding, they maintain operational independence that distinguishes them from state-run facilities. This distinction has ripple effects across multiple areas of law.
Dallas divorce attorneys who handle cases involving charter school employees or families with children in charter schools should recognize that these institutions occupy a unique legal position. They are neither purely private schools nor traditional public schools. This hybrid status creates compliance obligations and legal protections that differ from both categories.
Employment Law and Family Law Intersections
For individuals navigating both employment disputes and family law matters simultaneously, such as a parent facing job loss while also managing custody or support modifications, this case highlights why comprehensive legal strategy is essential. An employment termination can directly affect child support calculations, custody arrangements, and a parent’s ability to provide for their children during and after divorce.
If you are facing or have faced employment retaliation, whether or not statutory protections apply, a Dallas family law attorney should understand your employment situation thoroughly. This context informs everything from support calculations to custody arguments about a parent’s financial stability and emotional wellbeing.
Strategic Insights: Alternative Approaches and Legal Considerations
Different strategies might have included R. pursuing claims under alternative legal theories, such as common law wrongful discharge, breach of contract, or violations of at-will employment protections under Texas law, rather than relying exclusively on the Family Code retaliation statute. While these theories may face their own obstacles, they exist outside the governmental immunity framework that ultimately defeated her Section 261.110 claim.
Additionally, R. might have explored whether other provisions of the Education Code or administrative regulations created separate reporting protections. The court addressed and rejected this approach, finding that other statutory schemes impose reporting requirements but do not redefine who qualifies as a “professional” for Section 261.110 purposes.
From a procedural standpoint, understanding how pleadings are challenged through pleas to the jurisdiction, and recognizing when evidentiary challenges to jurisdictional facts require consideration of evidence beyond the pleadings themselves, represents critical litigation strategy. The distinction between challenging pleadings and challenging jurisdictional facts determines whether a case proceeds to trial or is dismissed at an early stage.
What Experienced Dallas Family Law Representation Means
For over 25 years, our Dallas family law practice has worked with families navigating intersections between employment law, child protection, and family matters. We understand that employment terminations, custody disputes, and child safety concerns often occur simultaneously and affect each other in ways that require strategic thinking across multiple legal domains.
When advising clients, we provide honest assessments of how courts interpret statutory protections and what legal theories are likely to succeed in your specific situation. We recognize that statutory protections, while important, have limitations and requirements. Our approach balances compassionate representation with realistic communication about what the law permits and what courts have actually held.
Serving Dallas and surrounding areas including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, DeSoto, Grand Prairie, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville, we counsel families on protecting their children’s safety while navigating employment and family law systems. We understand that what appears to be an employment matter can have profound implications for custody, support, and family stability.
Taking Action: Your Consultation Matters
If you are facing employment retaliation, child safety concerns, custody disputes, or the intersection of multiple legal issues affecting your family, consulting with an experienced Dallas family law attorney is essential. The law in this area is nuanced, and seemingly technical requirements, like the definition of “professional” or what constitutes a facility “operated by the state”, can determine whether you have legal recourse.
We invite you to contact our Dallas divorce lawyer team for a confidential consultation. During your initial consultation, we will listen to your specific situation, explain what the law permits and requires, and discuss realistic options moving forward. We do not offer false promises or guaranteed outcomes, but we do offer honest legal analysis grounded in decades of family law experience and a deep understanding of how Texas courts interpret and apply family law statutes.
Whether you are a best divorce lawyer in Dallas seeking a second opinion, contemplating divorce, managing custody arrangements, addressing child support modifications, or facing the complex interplay of employment and family law matters, our team is here to provide strategic guidance tailored to your circumstances. Dallas child custody lawyer services and Dallas child support lawyer expertise combine with our comprehensive divorce representation to address your family’s complete legal picture.
Your family’s welfare deserves representation that understands both the technical requirements of statutory protections and the practical realities of family life in Texas. Reach out today to learn how our 25+ years of Dallas family law experience can serve your family’s interests.
