CROSSOVER: Injury-to-a-Child Appeal: Non‑Parent Boyfriend’s Assumed Duty and Texas Venue/Jurisdiction Proof—Blueprint for Family‑Violence Findings

Skorich v. State; Woody v. State, 07-25-00001-CR, March 30, 2026.

On appeal from 222nd District Court, Deaf Smith County, Texas

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed convictions arising from an interstate trucking trip, holding Texas had subject-matter jurisdiction and Deaf Smith County was a proper venue even though much of the travel occurred out of state. The court also held the evidence was legally sufficient to prove (1) a non-parent boyfriend assumed “care, custody, and control” of the child (creating a legal duty) and (2) the mother caused serious bodily injury by omission through chronic deprivation of water and failure to obtain timely medical care.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion is a ready-made evidentiary and briefing template for conservatorship disputes involving non-parent romantic partners and for family-violence findings under the Family Code. It supplies appellate-grade reasoning for (i) treating a live-in boyfriend/“stepfather figure” as a de facto caregiver with enforceable duties, (ii) framing neglect/dehydration/medical nonfeasance as intentional or reckless omission-based “injury,” and (iii) overcoming jurisdiction/venue attacks when the endangerment is mobile (truckers, oilfield travel, RV living, multi-county movement)—all common fact patterns in Texas custody litigation and SAPCR modifications.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

A seven-year-old child arrived at the Hereford, Texas ER unresponsive, profoundly dehydrated, and covered with extensive bruising in various stages of healing. Treating physicians described sodium levels near 200 and dehydration so severe that standard IV access failed; staff drilled intraosseous access to deliver fluids. Medical testimony characterized the dehydration as chronic and not plausibly self-induced—water had been withheld over an extended period.

The child’s mother (Skorich) and her boyfriend (Woody), a long-haul truck driver, had been traveling for days in an 18-wheeler on a route from Arkansas to California and back, with substantial travel through Texas. During the trip, the adults restricted the child’s fluids (including no fluids after mid-afternoon), used a portable urinal to avoid stops, and lacked safe seating/restraint arrangements for the child in the cab. They reported the child fell from a high bunk at least once (accounts varied) and described an “outburst” followed by belt punishment; cell phone data allowed the jury to infer key events occurred after entering Texas.

The child exhibited lethargy for at least one to two days before arriving in Hereford. Woody acknowledged the child’s condition “progressively keeps getting worse” and stated he instructed Skorich about when to seek care, yet medical treatment did not occur until the child became unresponsive at a Texas truck stop. The record contained extensive evidence of belt discipline, admissions that belt strikes could leave patterned bruising, and inconsistent explanations for the injuries. After CPS involvement, the adults left Texas; they were later arrested out of state and extradited.

Issues Decided

• Whether the 222nd District Court of Deaf Smith County had subject-matter jurisdiction over injury-to-a-child offenses arising during an interstate trip through Texas.
• Whether venue was proper in Deaf Smith County for those offenses.
• Whether evidence was legally sufficient that Woody (a non-parent boyfriend) assumed “care, custody, and control” of the child and therefore owed a legal duty supporting omission liability.
• Whether evidence was legally sufficient that Skorich knowingly or recklessly caused serious bodily injury and bodily injury to the child by omission (including chronic water deprivation and failure to obtain timely medical care).

Rules Applied

• Texas Penal Code § 22.04 (Injury to a Child), including liability for causing injury by act or omission and the requirement of a legal duty when the theory is omission.
• Jurisdiction principles permitting Texas to prosecute when criminal conduct, results, or critical elements occur within Texas, even if other portions of the conduct occur elsewhere during a continuing course of conduct.
• Venue principles allowing prosecution in the county where an element occurred, where the injury was discovered/treated, or where the offense can be tied by the State’s proof to that county under Texas venue statutes and case law governing continuing offenses and multi-county criminal episodes.
• Assumed duty / care, custody, and control doctrine in omission prosecutions: a non-parent can acquire a duty by voluntarily undertaking responsibility for the child’s supervision and welfare, functioning as a member of the household with authority and decision-making over the child.

Application

The court treated the case as a mobile, continuing course of conduct with decisive Texas anchors: the child’s deterioration and ultimate medical crisis manifested in Texas, the adults’ travel path and cell data supported a Texas timeframe for key events, and the child was delivered for emergency treatment in Deaf Smith County. On that record, jurisdiction was not defeated by the interstate nature of the trip; Texas could prosecute because the evidence tied the injury-producing omissions and the resultant serious bodily injury to Texas.

On venue, the State’s proof did not need to show every omission occurred in Deaf Smith County—only that venue was proper under Texas law based on where the offense (or part of it) occurred or where the case could be prosecuted given the continuing nature of the conduct and the county’s connection to discovery/treatment and the episode’s endpoint. The Hereford ER presentation—combined with travel and timing evidence—gave the jury a legally sufficient basis to place venue in Deaf Smith County.

On Woody’s duty, the court emphasized the “family unit” evidence: cohabitation, the child living either in Woody’s home or in the truck with him, pooled finances including the child’s disability checks, Woody’s role as primary disciplinarian, and his decision-making influence over when medical care should be sought. That constellation supported the inference that Woody voluntarily assumed care, custody, and control—enough to impose a legal duty for omission liability under § 22.04.

On Skorich’s sufficiency challenge, the court relied heavily on medical testimony that the dehydration was chronic and non-accidental, plus evidence of intentional fluid restriction and delayed care despite observable decline. The court treated these as omission-based causation facts supporting a knowing or reckless mental state: the child’s worsening condition was apparent; the caregiving adults controlled access to water and medical intervention; and the crisis was the predictable consequence of sustained deprivation and inaction.

Holding

The Seventh Court of Appeals held the 222nd District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the offenses notwithstanding the interstate trucking route, because the evidence tied the criminal episode and resulting injury to Texas. The court also held venue was proper in Deaf Smith County based on the State’s proof connecting the offense to that county and the county’s role as the location of the child’s emergent presentation and the culmination of the episode.

Separately, the court held the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Woody assumed “care, custody, and control” of the child and thus owed a legal duty capable of supporting omission-based injury-to-a-child liability. Finally, the court held the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that Skorich knowingly or recklessly caused serious bodily injury and bodily injury by omission, and it affirmed both convictions and sentences.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, the opinion supplies a litigation-ready framework for cases where a parent’s partner is functionally acting as a caregiver, and where the endangerment theory is neglect/medical nonfeasance rather than a single discrete assault.

1. SAPCR and modification (endangerment / best interest): Use the court’s “assumed care, custody, and control” analysis to argue the romantic partner is not a background character but an active, accountable caregiver whose conduct bears directly on best interest, supervision, and protective orders in suit affecting the parent-child relationship.
2. Family-violence findings and protective orders: The case’s emphasis on patterned injuries, chronic deprivation, and caregiver admissions provides a blueprint for proving a course of conduct (not a one-off incident) supporting family-violence findings and the need for supervised possession or denial of possession.
3. Jurisdiction/venue fights in mobile families: In oilfield, trucking, RV, or “between counties” families, expect respondents to argue “it didn’t happen here.” This opinion is a strong counterweight: anchor your proof to where the child’s condition manifested, where the omission continued, where the crisis was discovered, and where medical intervention occurred.
4. Third-party presence restrictions: When seeking geographic restrictions, “no unrelated overnight adult” provisions, or injunctive relief about contact with a paramour, frame the issue around assumed responsibility and the partner’s demonstrated control over discipline, routines, and medical decisions—facts the appellate court treated as duty-generating.
5. Evidentiary development: The opinion rewards hard data—cell location evidence, medical testimony distinguishing acute illness from chronic deprivation, and documented inconsistencies in caregiver narratives. In custody litigation, these same categories strengthen temporary-orders hearings and final trials.

Checklists

Pleading and Relief Checklist (SAPCR / Divorce)

• Plead for findings that the child’s environment endangers physical or emotional welfare (temporary orders and final).
• Request family-violence findings where the evidence supports a course of conduct (including omission/neglect).
• Seek supervised possession, suspension, or step-up plans tied to verified compliance benchmarks.
• Plead injunctive relief regarding third-party contact (paramour restrictions; no corporal punishment by non-parent; no overnight unrelated adults, as appropriate to your court).
• Request orders requiring medical compliance: routine care, urgent-care triggers, and disclosure of all treatment and hospitalizations within 24 hours.

Proving “Assumed Care, Custody, and Control” (Non-Parent Partner)

• Establish cohabitation and duration (leases, utility bills, mail, employer records).
• Show the partner’s day-to-day authority: discipline rules, school/therapy decisions, transportation, bedtime, feeding, medication routines.
• Prove financial integration: pooled accounts, shared bills, use of the child’s benefits, purchase of child necessities.
• Elicit admissions (texts, recorded calls, social media) that the partner is a “stepfather,” “parent,” or primary disciplinarian.
• Document instances where the partner directed medical decisions (when to go, whether to go, which facility).

Building the Omission Case (Neglect / Medical Nonfeasance)

• Pin down the timeline of deterioration with specificity (symptom onset, progression, caregiver observations).
• Obtain complete medical records and an expert who can explain chronic vs. acute processes (e.g., dehydration markers inconsistent with viral illness).
• Prove control over resources (water/food access, ability to stop travel, ability to seek care).
• Develop foreseeability: prior episodes, warnings, “red flag” symptoms any caregiver would recognize.
• Capture inconsistent caregiver explanations and shifting stories (interviews, affidavits, prior pleadings).

Venue/Jurisdiction Proof for Mobile-Family Cases

• Lock in location data (cell records, GPS, ELD trucking logs, receipts, tolls, hotel/truck-stop purchases).
• Tie key events to the forum county: discovery of crisis, EMS/ER admission, treating physicians, photographs, law enforcement response.
• Frame the conduct as a continuing course culminating in the forum (not a single isolated out-of-county event).
• Anticipate and rebut “it happened elsewhere” defenses with expert testimony and data-backed timelines.

Citation

Skorich v. State; Woody v. State, Nos. 07-25-00001-CR & 07-25-00002-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 30, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

Family Law Crossover

Although this is a criminal § 22.04 opinion, it is unusually exportable into civil family practice because it operationalizes three concepts family judges regularly grapple with but rarely see mapped so cleanly: (1) mobile endangerment, (2) non-parent partner accountability, and (3) omission-based “violence” fact patterns.

Strategically, you can weaponize the opinion in a divorce/SAPCR by reframing the opposing party’s “new spouse/boyfriend is not a party” posture. The appellate court treated the boyfriend’s integrated household role—discipline authority, shared finances, living arrangements, and medical-decision influence—as evidence of assumed care, custody, and control that generates legal duty. In civil terms, that supports: (i) heightened scrutiny of the child’s day-to-day supervisors, (ii) third-party contact restrictions where the partner has demonstrated coercive control over caregiving, and (iii) credibility attacks when the parent attempts to minimize the partner’s role after an incident.

Just as importantly, the court’s causation narrative makes neglect evidence trial-ready: chronic deprivation plus delayed medical care is not “bad judgment,” it is an omission theory with predictable serious injury outcomes when caregivers control access to basic necessities. In a conservatorship contest, that translates directly into best-interest findings, endangerment-based restrictions, and family-violence findings—especially where the fact pattern involves travel, isolation, and limited third-party oversight (truck cab, RV, extended road trips), and the respondent tries to defeat relief with a jurisdiction/venue fog.

~~fbe258df-3cfb-4e9b-bd6a-cf61e55bac9d~~