Democratic congressional candidate Katy Padilla Stout represented a father seeking to overturn the termination of his parental rights after a Texas court found clear and convincing evidence that he endangered his children.
Padilla Stout faces Republican nominee Brandon Herrera and independent Ben Mendoza in the November 3 general election for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, according to the certified ballot. The Dallas Express previously reported on the candidates’ general-election fundraising.
On her campaign website, Padilla Stout states: “I am a lifelong Texan, a wife, a mother, an attorney, and a former public school teacher. My life has been defined by a firm commitment to serving the children, families, and communities that make up Texas’ 23rd Congressional District.”
She added: “My journey began with humble roots that shaped everything I believe about hard work and integrity. Raised by a single mother, I saw firsthand the challenges working families face every day. My father and grandparents were migrant farmworkers from South Texas, and my great-grandfather spent years serving our community as a custodian at the Bexar County Courthouse. Their legacy of perseverance is the foundation upon which I stand.”
Court records identify Padilla Stout as the attorney representing J.A., the biological father of two children, in his appeal challenging the termination of his parental rights. The appellate mandate identifies J.A. as presumed indigent, but the public docket does not indicate whether a court appointed Padilla Stout or the father privately retained her.
Court records detail abuse allegations
According to the appellate opinion, a CPS investigation began after a November 7, 2022, complaint involving L.A. crying, two slaps being heard, and the child continuing to cry while the father was the only other person in the room.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services argued that the father “allegedly slapped L.A. with such force that her eye sustained bruising, swelling, and redness that necessitated EMS evaluation,” the appellate court recounted.
The father’s court-ordered family service plan also raised concerns about alcohol use while caring for his children. The plan stated that “[a]t this time, there are concerns that [Father] is consuming excessive amounts of alcohol while being the primary caregiver of [the Children] putting them in imminent danger of injury or death.”
The plan also addressed domestic disturbances: “Based on previous criminal history and CPS investigations, there are concerns of several altercations between [Mother], [Father] and other family members, while intoxicated or under the influence of illegal substances, with [the Children] . . . in the home, which put [the Children] in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.”
The father spent nine of the 13 months of the termination proceeding incarcerated, the majority opinion noted. A sexual assault charge sent him back to jail in March 2025, one month before trial. Father told conservatorship worker Ashley Davison that “the alleged incident occurred when he was drunk, and he, therefore, did not remember it.” The opinion does not state that the father was convicted of that sexual assault charge.
Appeals court upheld termination
Following an April 2025 bench trial, the trial court terminated the father’s parental rights after finding clear and convincing evidence that he knowingly placed or allowed the children to remain in conditions that endangered their physical or emotional well-being, engaged in conduct that endangered them, failed to comply with a court order, and that termination served the children’s best interests.
Padilla Stout represented the father on appeal and challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. The Fourth Court of Appeals rejected his arguments and affirmed the termination in a 2-1 decision. The majority concluded: “Thus, the evidence is legally sufficient to support this finding.”
Justice Lori Massey Brissette dissented, arguing that the majority failed to apply the heightened scrutiny required in parental-termination cases. She said the alleged slap rested on an uncorroborated secondhand account without an EMS report or child interview, the domestic violence assertions lacked supporting evidence, and the sexual assault arrest did not prove the underlying allegation.
Brissette also pointed to the father’s progress on his service plan and would have reversed the termination and returned the case to the trial court for a decision on conservatorship.
The Texas Supreme Court denied the father’s petition for review on June 19, 2026. The Fourth Court of Appeals issued its mandate on August 11, leaving the termination in place.
The Dallas Express reached out to Padilla Stout’s campaign for comment regarding her representation of the father and the circumstances surrounding the case but had not received a response by publication.
