Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Texas Children’s Justice Act Project, Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
presents
THE PROSECUTION OF CHILD ABUSE CASES
A Workshop for Child Abuse Professionals
July 12-13,201 8:OO am-590 pm
The Commons J. J. Pickle Research Campus Braker Lane and Burnet Road
Austin, Texas
TERMINATION AND ADOPTION
CASE LAW UPDATE
Ellen A. Yarrell 1900 St. James Place, Suite 850
Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 621-3332 Facsimile: (713) 621-3669
Advanced Family Law Course August Gb, 2001
San Antonio, Texas Chapter 44
ELLEN A. YABRELL 1900 St. James Place, Suite. 850
Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 621-3332 - tel hone
“p . (713) 621-3669 -facsimile
BIOGBAFWICAL INFOIWATION
EDVCA TION:
PROFESSIONAL ACTIMlTES:
BFA, University of Texas 1971, Summa Cum Laude J.D., University of Texas School of Law December 1978 Attorney Mediators Institute, 1994 AAML Advanced Mediation Training, 2000
Fkcipient-Dave. Gibson Award for ExccUcncc & Professionalism in Family Law, 2001
Licensed-State Bar of Texas, May 1979 Licensed-U.S. District Court for the Southem District of TX, 1986 Licensed-Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, August 1991 Board Certified-Family Law, I992 Fellow-American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, since 1996 Chairman - Adoption Committee -
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 1997 - 1998 American Academy of Adoption Attorneys - since 1995 American inns of Court - Family Law - 1996 to present;
Secretary 1998-1999; Vice-President-2001; President-2001-2002 State Bar of Texas - Family Law Council 1999-2004 Memk-State Bar of Texas- Family Law Section 1986-present Member-Houston Bar Association- Family Law Section since 1986 Board of Directors, HBA-Family Law Section 1994-2000 Member-College of the State Bar, 1989-present Fellow-Texas Bar Foundation 1990 to present Member- Golf Coast Family Law Specialists, 1992 to present;
President 2000 - 2001 Member-Disabilities and Elder Law Attorney’s Association,
1993 to present Member-District Four Grievance Committee-State Bar of TX,
1994 to 1998 Child Advocates, Inc.-Board of Directors, 1987-1991 Children Cope, Inc.-Board of Directors, 1993 to present National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law UPA
committee 1999 - 2001 CLE PUBLIC4 TIONS & PRESENZAAIIONS: Advanced Family Law Seminars:
1994 - Termination/Adoption Workshop - Speaker 1995 - TcrminationIAdoption Workshop - Speaker 1996 - Termination/Adoption Workshop - Chair
CLE PVBLICA TIONS AND
i
PRESENTATIONS 1996”lnterpleader. lmplcader, lnter-vcntion and Consolidation” -Speaker
corn. . 1996 -Termination/Adoption Workshop-Chair
1997 - TerminationlAdoptio~atemity Workshop - Speaker
1998 -Termination/Adoption - Speaker
1999 - Termination/Adoption - Speaker 2000 - Termination/Adoption - Speaker
Houston Bar Association Family Law Institute: 1998-Speaker-Termination and Adoption Issues
1999-Speaker-Termination and Adoption Issues
200~Speaker-Termination and Adoption issues
200 l-Speaker-Termination and Adoption Issues
Houston Bar Association Lecture Series: 1996-Minefield’s of Adoption/Termination Practice
1996-Custody & Visitation
1997-Adoption Practice
South Texas College of Law - Family Law Institute:
1995-Meditation Training
1997-‘What Every Lawyer Should Know About Termination/Adoption Practice”
1997-Mediation Training
Houston Volunteer Lawyer Program:
1998-Tetmination and Adoption
1999-Termination and Adoption
2OOO-Getting Started
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
1997-Adoption Practice
200&-Evidence in Family Law Cases
Texas Banker’s Association - Court Created Trust Task Force ZOOl-Emancipation of Minors
2OOl-Court Created Trusts - 4142 v. 5867
Advanced Probate & Estate Seminar - 2001 - “Who’s My Mommy, Who’s My Daddy”
Community Preseixations
Adoptive Families - Together Speaker Forum - 1994,1995, 1996
Infertility Nehvork Series - Speaker - 1994,1995,1996, 1997, 1998,200O
Resolve Outmach- Speaker - 1997, 1998, 1999,200O
Abandoned With Knowledge of Pregnancy ,,..___.,..,,._..__...,...,......,..,..,.....,,..,.......,.,..,.......,.,....... .,.,_._._.. 2
Ad Litem .,,_._,_.,.,.,.,__._...,..,..........,..,..,.........,......,...,............,,.........,..,..,.........,......................................... 2
ADA ,_._.__..,.,.___._._.,.,.......,.,,.,...........,..,..,......,.......................................................................................... 3
Adoption Agreement ..~_.,._..,..,...___..................,.............,.......................................................................... 3
Adoption by Estoppcl .,,,..._,__.___.....,.,....................................................................................................... 3
Afftdavit of Relinquishment .,........,........,,.....,..............................,..............,,.,................................ .._.... 3
Affidavit of Waiver of Interest . . . . ..___._____................................................................................................. 4
Affirmative Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ..... 4
Alleged Father . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ .4
Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ .......................... 5
Appellate Standard of Review . ..__........................................................................................... .._.._._.._.. 6
Associate Judge - Harris County Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Attendsnce . . . .6
Best Interests __ _. ._ _. __ . . . __ . . . . . _.. . . . __. . . . . . . . .__ . . . . . . __ __ ._ __ .6
Bill of Review __,..........._.............,...........,..,...,.,....,........,..,.,,.,..,......,.,,.,.,......,..,....................,.................. 8
Burden of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... ...... 8
Charge . . . . . . . . . .._._............................................................................................................................... .._._.. 8
Citation by Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 9
Clear & convincing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... 9
Conduct . . ._ . . ._. ._ .9
Conflict of Interest . . . . . . . .._.____........................................................,....................,........,,.,.,.............,.,, 10
Constitutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 10
Constructive Abandonment . . . . .._._................................................................................,,.,.,...............,. 1 I
Conviction of crime statutory ground _.........,..,____._..............,.........,.....,........,..,.,..,.........,.., ,,., ,,, ,._._._.. 12
Cost Bond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 12
Duty to Fkad Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Effective Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.,,.,_._.._._...,.,.,. 13
Endangering Conduct .,_.___..........,.................,..,..........,..,..,,..,......,..,..,,.,........,..,,.,.,...........,..,.,.,... .._._._. 13
Endangering Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~............................................................................ ,,.,., I8
Endangering Surroundings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 19
Failure to Support . . . . . . . . . . ..____._................................................................,........,..,..,.,....,......,,,,.,............ 2 I
Final Judgment . . . . . . . . ..__.___................................................................,...........,..,...........,,.,.,........,... ,,.,., 22
Grandparent Access ..,.,..,..__,.._....,.....,........,..,..,,.,.......,..,..,...,.....,,..,.,.........,..,..,.,.......,.,.,,.,........,.,,,,.,. 22
m
Grandparent Preference ........................................................................................................................ 23
Grandparent Visitation ......................................................................................................................... 23
Habeas Corpus ..................................................................................................................................... 23
ICPC ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
ICWA ................................................................................................................................................... 23
Ineffective Counsel ............................................................................................................................... 23
Inheritance ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Intent Not to Return ............................................................................................................................. 24
Intcrventionktanding ............................................................................................................................ 24
Involuntary Termination ...................................................................................................................... 25
Judgment .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Jury Instructions ................................................................................................................................... 26
Jury Request ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Jury Selection ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Jury Submission. .................................................................................................................................. 26
L.e&imization ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Notary ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Notice ................................................................................................................................................... 27
overreaching ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Parental Preference ............................................................................................................................... 28
Parental Rights ..................................................................................................................................... 28
Paternity ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Pleadings .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Pre-suit waiver.. ................................................................................................................................... 30
Prwedure - Motion for New Trial ........................................................................................................ 3 I
iv
~r~~~e .............................................................................................................................................. 3 1
Qualified Immunity .............................................................................................................................. 3 1
Rcs Judicata.. ........................................................................................................................................ 3 1
Revocation ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Scaled File ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Separation of Siblings .......................................................................................................................... 32
Scvcrancc.. ............................................................................................................................................ 32
standing ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Step-parent adoption.. ............................................................................ . ............................................. 34
Summary Judgment.. ............................................................................................................................ 34
Two Year Criminal.. ............................................................................................................................. 34
UCCJA ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Undue lntluence .................................................................................................................................... 3 5
venue.. .................................................................................................................................................. 35
Waiting Period - 5 day (when petition is filed as unborn Baby ‘IX”) .................................................. 36
Waiting period - 48 hours .................................................................................................................... 36
Waiver.. ................................................................................................................................................ 36
.- V
I
.
1
.
T * tmn
TERMINATION AND ADOPTION-CASE LAW UPDATE
Since the last update in August, 2000, there have been over twenty noteworthy cases to add to the
subject list. Included in the new cases arc cases which address three topics not previously high&&cd in our
subject index, specifically, “Alleged Father”; “Charge to the Jury” and “Conviction of Crime - statutory
grounds”. The issues of appcllatc standard of rcvicw, elements of the jury charge and cffcctivcncss of
uxmscl have garnered much attention since. the last update. The Texas Supreme Court granted tit in the
TDPRS cast In the Meres: 0fC.H and it is pending at press time
Abandoned With Knowledge of Preenancy
29 Diaz v. Beyer, 611 S.W.Zd 726 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, writ rcfd n.r.e)
108 Edwards v. TDPZLY, 946 S.W.Zd 130 (Tcx.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ) > conduct suRicicnt to tcrminatc on abandonment and cndangcring conduct where biological father
failed to contact hospital rc: birth or caseworker
28 Najar v. Oman, 624 S.W.Zd 385 (Tcx.Civ.App. -Austin 1981, rchcaring denied)
ADA
183 Burteli u Lo/riser, (6th Cir. 2000 Fed App. 0194P (6th Cir.) 6/7/00) > Termination of mother’s rights case where child was physically and mentally challenged and mother
had &rcme mental issues herself & Post termination, birth mother tiles suit in federal court alleging violation of ADA and
Rehabilitation Act > Issue of qualified immunity from liability.
Ad Litem
119 In theinterest of CD. and&?, 962 S.W.2d 145 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 1998, no writ) 7 & Attorney Ad Litcm may call undesignated witncsscs if no discovery was sent to Attorney Ad Litcm
requesting designation
73 In thelnterest of J.E, BD., SE and ZX minor children, 888 S.W.2d 140 (Tcx.App.-Tyler 1994, no wit) > author&s broad form submission > discusses ad litcm
92 MO&OS v. TDPZS, 937 S.W.Zd 560 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) b jury instructions were proper & clear and convincing cvidencc supported termination of parcntal rights > biological mother’s request to remove GAL denied by Court; upheld on appeal
156 In theinterest o/M.D.S., 1 S.W.3d 190 (Tcx. Amarillo, 1999, no writ) b Maternal Grandparent tiled termination suit involving I year old child b No ad litcm rcquircd as child’s intcrcsts wcrc adequately rcprcsentcd b Patcmal Grandparents denied acocss based on Court’s dctcnnination that visitation would not be in
the childs best interest
130 Harris County CpSv. Olvera, 971 S.W.2d 172 (Tcx.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1998, writ dcnicd) b trial court lacked jurisdiction to award attomcy ad litcm fees for services performed on appeal b CPS not required to pay attorney ad litem foes on appeal
166 In theInterest of rK, 8 S.W.3d 448 (Tcx.App.-Waco 1999, no writ)
. - 2
P Indigent parent had AAL at trial where court terminated rights > AAL did not assist parent in appeal b Appellate court remanded stating that although an AAL is not presumed to continue the
representation, the process is ineffective if indigent not represented on appeal
150 TDPRS, 990 S.W.Zd 848 (Tcx.App.- Amarillo 1999, no writ) b Mandamus proceeding brought by the department Underlying issue concerns whether Dept. can be
ordcre4l to pay ad litem fees in a termination case
Adoution Agreement
169 Dziminski u. Adoption Access, (Dallas 99-00085 CV l/28/00 UNPUBLISHED) b Adoption agrccmcnt signed by adoptive parents after placcmcnt dccs not void agreement Parties to
agrccmcnts held to have known comcnts before signing Judgment upheld
Adootion bv Estooucl
172 In rcM.LZ?J, 16 S.W.3d 45 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000) b Family Code does not recognize “adoption by estoppcl”
149 Spim v. Maples, 970 S.W.2d 166 (Tcx. App.- Ft Worth 1998, no writ) b Probate Court Adoption by Estoppcl authorized
ARidavit of Relinauishmcnt
22 In Re: BZKF., 595 S.W.2d 873 (Tcx.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1980, no writ) b credibility of witnesses riced not bc provea b validates waiver of citation prior to birth & petition b affidavit is prima facie cvidcncc of statutory ground (K) and best interest
128 In thelnterat ofBaby GirlBruno, 974 S.W.Zd 401(Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1998, no writ) b Mother’s affidavit upheld b Agency cmploycc may notarize b 2 witmsscs need not know birth mother or contents of documents b permits prc-suit waiver of citation
46 Byrne y. Catholic Charities, 7 10 S.W.Zd 780 (Tcx.App.-Austin 1986, no writ) b affidavit sutlicicnt to prove both prongs of termination test
60 Cokmcn v. Smeltwood, 800 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, no writ) b minors pcrmittcd to cxecutc affidavits
36 Zn theInterest ofLIE. K, 654 S.W.2d 33 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1983, writ rcfd n.r.c) b affidavit can be vcriticd by notary without witncsscs bcmg present
4 Hail v. Hayes, 441 S.W.Zd 275, (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, no writ) b duty to read document bcforc signing
54 In theInterest of McAda, 780 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1989, writ dcnicd)
3
9 WU chmler 44
84 Sims v. TheAdoption Alliance, 922 S.W.2d 213 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1996, writ denied) b 48 hour rule is retroactive to all pending casts as of 9/l/9.
179 yclrr v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3d 750 (Tcx.App.-Austin 2000, writ denied) b Termination based on Moth& Affidavit of Rclinquishmcnt reversed b Agency made rcprcsentations concerning post termination/adoption participation which appcllatc
court held to = fraud in the induccmcnt b Prcscnts the question of whcthcr a bii mother canrcvokc her voluntary relinquishment of parental
rights solely because the adoption agency failed to advise her that an open adoption agreement is not legally enforceable.
Afidavit of Waiver of Interest
56 Ivy v. The Edna Gladnq Home, 783 S.W.Zd 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, no writ) b prc-suit waiver of citation approved
Affimative Defense
153 In thclnterest of CM., 996 S.W.Zd 269 (Texas App- Houston [lst Dist.], 1999, no writ) b Mothcr failed to raise issue of aRirmativc dcfcnm of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in her
pleadings b Affirmative dcfcnse must be. plead and proven
Alleeed Father
a In the interest of K.M.S., 2001 WL 493437 (Tcx.App.-Dallas) b Bill of Rcvicw issue conccming paternity adjudication b Disregards TDPRS v. Sherry whcrcin TX. Suprcmc Court held that fi 160.00 1 (a)( 1) barrcd the suit for
patcmity and that alleged father lacked standing to bring a SAPCR b Dcftition of “allcgcd father” and who is entitled to scrvicc.
190 Phillips and Loper u TDPRS, 25 S.W.3D 348 (Tcx.App.-Austin 2000, no writ) b The rights of an alleged biological father may bc terminated even if the child has a diRerent
prcsumcd father; b Issue conrcrncd whether the “putative father” had any rights a court could tcrminatc; b Q 16 1 .OOZ(b)( 1) rights can bc terminated as to an alleged biological father absent tiled claim for
patcmity
93 Aguim v. TDPZU, 917 S.W.Zd 462 (Tcx.App-Austin 1996, no writ) b cost bond filed a&r 90 day period amended Mother’s incffcctivc affidavit of inability to pay costs.
187 In the interest of GC, 22 S.W.3D 932 (Tcx. 2000) b Indigent may appeal without advance paymcnt of costs.
100 Guma v. TDPRS, 940 S.W.Zd 295 (Tcx.App.- San Antonio 1997, no writ)
. - 4
b biological mother’s failure to tile ttmely the statement of facts prevented her appeal; constitutional rights not violated by dismissal of appeal
205 In theinterest of-MC., 201 WL 533218 (Tex.App.-Waco) b Challenge to jury charge on appeal. No objections were made at trial. Appellate Court adopted the
“core issue” concept for due process reasons; b Appeals Court held “charge error” because a separate question as to best interest was not included
189 Lea1 y. TDPRS, 25 S.W.3D 315 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no tit) b Clear and convincing evidence required to terminate; b Standard of review issue: factual suRiciency requires review using clear & convincing standard of
review b Court of appeals will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact merely because it reaches
a different conclusion.
121 In the Interest of&f. IX, 959 S.W.Zd 661 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, no writ) b explanation of appellate standards on review b “Close calls” between parent v. non-parent go in favor of patent b paternal grandmother could not be managing wnservator based on birth mother’s voluntary
relinquishment where grandmother did not file intervention within 90 days fomterly 8~4.O~(b)(l)AW)
b “Judicial Notice” TRE 201 discussion b examples of acts or omissions which show significant impairment
87 Ryder v. State of Taos, 917 S.W. 2d 503, (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ) b appellate procedure-Rule 41(a)(l) is jurisdictional; indigent tertttinated mother did not have standing
to appeal status review hearing
132 Vargas v. TDPRS., 973 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998) Review granted, Decision set aside January 14, 1999. b trial court refusal to prepare fmdings of fact/conclusions of law upon proper requests is presumed
harm b birth mother tiled fmdings of fact /conclusions of law prematurely; deemed tiled atIer signing of
judgment
Amehte Standard of Review
208 In fhe inlerest of &A., 2001 WL 5783 14 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.]) b Discusses the issue of appellate standard of review “preponderance” or “clear and convincing”; b Endangering conduct.
126 Hann v. TDPRS, 969 S.W.Zd 77 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, writ denied) b standard of review: when burden of prcof at trial is “clw and convincing”, appellate court will apply
higher standard of factual sufhciency.
123 b thcInfcrest of JAR, 01-97-01036~CV (Houston, July 16,1998) b appellate standard of review of factual sufliciency when clear and convincing evidence is trial Court.
Burden of Proof is as in other civil cases, i.e. the trial court’s decision will be reversed only if result is so against the great weight and pnpondaance to be unjust
122 Span&r y. TDPRS, 962 S.W.2d 253 (Tcx.App.-Tyler 1998, no writ)
5
-
b father has a legal duty to support his child even when not ordered by the trial court to make payments b occasional giAs are instdlicient to fulfill a parent’s obligation to support. b adopts the “higher standard” for appeal
112 Avery V. Stute of Tcxns, 963 S.W.Zd 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1997, no writ) b pursuant to local rule, Harris County Associate Juvenile Court Judge can hear contested termination
CBseS
b evidence that birth mother had her rights terminated to another child 17 years earlier was not too remote in time. Course of criminal conduct continued
157 In thelnteresr of BXM, 2 S.W. 3d 421 (Tex. App.- San Antonio, 1999, no writ) b Birth mother tiled a jury fee and then did not show up until the 4 th day of trial b Trial Court may not disregard jury request when party fails to appear for trial when her attorney
appeared and atmouueed he was present. b Reversed and remanded for a jury trial
Best Interest
46 Byrne v. Catholic Charities, 710 S.W.Zd 780 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, no writ) b afftdavit suflicient to prove both prongs of termination test
176 In rhcInterest of CH., 25 S.W.3D 38 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, writ granted) b Jury tennitrated mother on evidence of drugs, criminal behavior, endangering surroundings b CCA reversed stating although there was sulTtcient evidence on the invohmtaty grounds plead, there
was ittsuBicient evidence as to best interest.
159 In the Interest ofDG., 5 S.W.3d 769 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no writ) b TDPRS appeals a jury verdict not terminating BF b Jury did not find that it was in the children’s best interest to temtinate BF although the children will
remain in foster care under the supervision of the Dept. with no adoption and supervised visits with Bf
110 In fhelnterest of ?f.C andS.C. 942 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio ‘1997, n.w.h.) b evidence sufficient to terminate birth father and birth mother on 4 16 1 .OO 1 - endangering conduct (e)
and endangering environment (f) b trial court correctly denied birth mother’s request for jury instruction on parental presumption
97 In the Interest of Hidalgo, 938 S.W.Zd 492 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1996, no writ) > stepmother awarded custody alk biological father’s death - rebutting presumption that biological
mother should be appointed managing conservator
11 Ho@ v. Adam, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) b list of factors to be umsidered
56 Ivy v. The Edna Gludnq Home, 783 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, no writ)
6
> pm-suit waiver of citation approved
140 Man&in v. DcLaRoso, No. 05-96-01197~CV Dallas) UNPUBLISHED > focus in a termination case is on the parent, while focus in a conservatorship case is on the child’s
best interest b court discusses m and Lcwelling > court applied wong standard: termination upheld; conservatorship decision reversed and remanded
41 Richardson v. Green, 677 SW. 2d 497 (Tex. 1984) b parental rights cannot be terminated based solely upon best i&rests
99 In the Inferest of Rodriguez, 940 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, tit denied) Z+ non-parents satisfy Lcwelling test that their appointment supers&s biological dad based on the
psychological evidence of trauma of removal 6om adoptive home; best interest test overcomes presumption of appointment of parent as managing conservator.
79 Spuriock y. TDPRS, 904 SW. 2d 152 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no tit) % fmding of mental illness dccs not require scientific certainty that parent will be unable to provide for
child’s netds, but rather, masonable probability
39 Stuart v. Tarrant Cow@ Child We&r+?, 677 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.e) > instruction language loverruled by later cases] > act of violence need not be committed in presence of children
Bill of Review
204 In the intereat o/KM& 2001 WL 493437 (Tcx.App.-Dallas) b Bill of Review issue concerning paternity adjudication b Disregards TDPRS v. Sherry wherein TX. Supreme Court held that 5 160.001(a)( 1) barred the suit for
paternity and that alleged father lacked standing to bring a SAPCR b Mmition of “alleged father” and who is entitled to service.
139 In thcintmest of i?RR, 986 S.W.Zd 31 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no tit) b Grandparent adoption. b birth mother brought bill of review, trial cowt denied b Court of Appeals held a) failure to state specific ground for termination= prima facie meritorious defense; b) failure to appoint attorney ad litem for birth mother was mistake c) evidence supported birth mother’s failuns were not due to her own fault
Burden of Proof
68 D.0. v. Tacos Dcpo?tnunf of Human Services, 851 S.W.Zd 351 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, no writ) b burdm of proof on movant seeking to terminate rights b abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a child’s home can produce and
environment that endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child b permanent foster care is not in the best interest
123 In thclntercst of J.N.R, 01-97-01036-CV (Houston, July 16,1998) b appellate standard of review of factual sticiency when clear and convincing evidence is trial Court
7
Burden of Proof is as in other civil cases, i.e. the trial court’s decision till be reversed only if result is so against the great weight and preponderance to be unjust
Charge
205 In the interest ofJ.EC., 201 WL 533218 (Tex.App.-Waw) b Challenge to jury charge on appeal. No objections were made at trial, Appellate Court adopted the
“core issue” concept for due process IZ~SOII.S;
b Appeals Court held “cherge error” because a separate question as to best intereat was not included.
193 In the interest ofJ.MC.A., 31 S.W.3D 692 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ) b Evidence of parent’s omission or failure to act may be considered by tba jury in termination
decisions; b Broad form jury instruction approved
206 WaddeN v. TDPRY, 2001 WI. 533807 (Tex.App.-Dallas) b Addreases issue of admissibility of criminal convictions which are on appeal in a civil trial; wurt
concludes admissible, relevant because imprisonment is a factor which a fact ftnder can consider in termination cases Broad form question in charge - Court held that absent formal objection, there is no preserved error on appeal.
Citation bv Publication
170 In thclnterest ofA.E, 16 S.W.3D 387 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, no writ) b Issue of pmper notification raised on appeal b Court upheld citation by pub on BF whose name was Imown but no other identifying information
available b Authorized publication in county where suit is pending
101 GSK. v. IK.A!, 940 S.W.Zd 797 (Tex.App.- El Paso 1997, no tit) b stepparent adoption; biological father cited by publication; default termination taken; no record;
biological father filed writ of error - no record, thus, no statement of facts, therefore invalid terminationkdoption
Clear & Convincing
104 In thelnterestofD.LR, 943 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.App.- San Antonio, 1997, no writ) b maternal grandmother attempting to temtinate. biological father - Court fmds there was not clear and
convincing evidence; further, although father’s criminal conviction can be considered as endangering the physical and emotional well-being of child, a violation of p 16 1 .OO 1 TFC does not, alone, mandate termination
25 In theInterest ofGM 596 S.W. 2d 846 (Tcx. 1980) b the burden of proof for all findings in a termination proceeding is by clear and convincing evidence
66 Hurris v. Herbas, 838 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1992, no writ)
8
B deft&ion -clear and convincing b course of conduct (arresta) including imprisonment b definition: means to expose to toss or injury; to jeopardize, course of conduct including
imprisonment shows a wurse of conduct which has the effect of endangering the physical or emotional well-being of the child
92 Maltos v. TDPRS, 937 S.W.Zd 560 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) b jury instructions were proper b clear and convincing evidence supported termination of parental rights b biological mother’s request to remove GAL denied by Court; upheld on appeal
2 1 Santosky v. Krmer, 455 U.S. 745 (1980) b the Court made it clear that the fmdings in termination cases must be by clear and convincing
evidence.
57 WWiams v. Tnar Department of Human Services, 788 S.W.Zd 922 (Tex.App.- Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1990, no wit)
Conduct
50 In thelnterest ofA.K.S., 736 S.W.Zd 145 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1987, notit)
85a InRe:M.C., D.C. & CU!,932 S.W. 2d35 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1995) b evidence insuflicient to terminate Mom on grounds of endangering conduct or surroundings b aflhncd in part; reversed in part
85 InRe:M.C.,D.C&C.~,917S.W.2d268(Tcx.l996) b court of appeals ovemded jury’s verdict to terminate mother’s parental rights - insufftcient evidence
to support termination of mother b supreme court granted Writ of Error; remanded for new trial
[See new trial cite 932 SW2d 35 (85a)]
19 In thcbterest of S.D.H., 591 S.W.Zd 637 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1979, no writ) b mere imprisonment before birth not sufticient to terminate
74 Trevino v. The Texas Department of Protective ondRegalatoy Services, 893 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.- Austin 1995, no tit)
Conflict of Interest
89 Arteakw y. TDPRF, 924 S.W.2d 756 (Te;.App.-Austin 1996, writ denied) b court had right to terminate Mexican National father’s parental rights upon fulfilling notice
requirement to Mexican Consulate of proceedings b father waived conflict of interest with attorney representing him by failing to bring conflict to trial
judge’s attention
9
< T ti and
25 In the In~rrest of GM. 596 S.W. 2d 846 (Tcx 1980) b the burden of proof for all fmdings in a termination proceeding is by clear and convincing evidence
42 Holick v. Smith, 685 SW. 2d 18 (Tcx. 1985) nh. ovenukd. > termination proceed@ should be strictly scrutinized and involuntary termination statutes should be
strictly wnsbwd in favor of the parent
158 In theInterest o/K&, 22 S.W. 3rd 85 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2000, no writ) b Jury trial where parental rights were terminated > BF argued that being handcuffed during the hial was prejudicial and violated his constitutional rights > Appellate court found that “handcufk” was error, but harmless considering the other testimony
51 In the Interest of ClnnamedBoby McLean, 125 S.W. 2d 696 (Tex. 1987) > the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitution was violated by the statutory scheme for
legitimation which required the biological father to obtain the mother’s consent or prove to the Court that legitimation was in the child’s best interest; this constituted sex based discrimination
41 Richardson v. Green, 677 S.W. 2d 497 (Tcx. 1984) b parental rights coot be mated based solely upon best interests
21 Sanfosky x Krmner, 455 U.S. 745 (1980) k the Court made it clear that the fmdings in termination cases must be by clear and convincing
evidence.
135 Srgovia v. TDPRS, 979 S.W.Zd 785 (Tcx.App.-Houston [14tb Dist] 1998, tit denied) > constitutional challenge most be properly raised at trial court level or = waiver. b endangemwkt m be inferred Corn parental misconduct
6 Stanley x INinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) N the Court held that tbc unwed father was entitled to citation and notice of a suit for termination. The
biological parental rights are “far mom precious than propnty rights”
8 UQv v. SpratIan, 543 S.W.Zd 349 (Tex. 1976) b dcfmes statutory 18 month period of non support R biological rights of parents arc constitutionally protected
Constructive Abandonment
133 In thclntewst o/aS.r, 977 S.W.Zd 481 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1998, no tit) b Court of Appeals deleted ground of endangering surroundings based on insticicnt evidence - i.e. no
food, no clothing, no school, no toilei training b upheld termination on faihue to comply with CPS plan i.e. constructive abandonment
Q161.001(1)(N)andcndangcringconduct
& In the infer& ofD. E, 34 S.W.3D 625 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth, 2000, no tit) b lnsticicnt evidcnos to support termination; b No evidence to support “knowingly” placed or allowed her child to remain in endangering conditions
_- 10
155 InfhcZnterescofl?R, 994 S.W. 2d411 (Tex.App.- Fort Worth 1999, dism. w.o.) > Ground of constructive abandonment discussed * Grandparent request for custody ruled moot
102 In Re: RA.T, RL7: RRTandBlI:, 938 S.W.2d 783 (Tex.App.- Eastland 1997, writ denied) b TFC 161.001(l)(n) - constructive abandonment statute (1995) cannot be applied retroactively
$+J In Re Ruiz, 16 S.W.3D 921 (Tcx.App.-Waco 2000, no writ) b #263.401(a) drop dead one year statute b Mandamus filed b Issue: does docket notation = rendition? Answer “yes”; mandamus granted, case dismissed and
child returned to parent
125 In theInferest ofShow, 966 S.W.Zd 174 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, no writ) b trial court violated cxpost facto prohibition where. requisite statutory period of constructive
abandonment began prior to effective date of statute
195 In the infcresr of E&f., 33 S.W.3D 34 I (Tex.App.-Amarillo, 2000, no writ) b 12 month drop dead dismissal under 5263.401; b Contract void (Rule 11) if against public policy
Conviction of Crime - statuton nround
188 In the in&r& of K.C Jr. andJ.M.C., 23 S.W.3D 604 (Tcx.App.-Beaumont 2000, no writ) b Two fathers tcrminatcd on different grounds -
1 endangerment - drug use, incarceration; 2 failure to provide cam for child while incarccratcd;
b Implied waiver of jury trial does not implicate tbc 14th amendment.
&I k?daarri v. Enscy., 2001 WL. 123766 (Amarillo 07-00-‘0123~CV 2/14/01) b Step-parent adoption; no evidence to support termination based on conviction of serious injury to a
child; Trial court reversed b Standard of rcvimv
206 Wuddell v. TDPRS, 2001 WL 533807 (Tex.App.-Dallas) b Addresses issue of admissibility of criminal convictions which are on appeal in a civil trial; court
concludes admissible, relevant because imprisonment is a factor which a fact finder can consider in termination cases
b Broad form question in charge - Court held that absent formal objation, tbcrc is no preswved error on appeal.
93 Aguirre y. TDPRS, 917 S.W.Zd 462 (Tcx.App-Austin 1996, no wit) b wst bond tiled atla 90 day period amended Mother’s ineffective affidavit of inability to pay costs.
11
Dutv to Read Document
4 Hall v. Hayes, 441 S.W.Zd 275, (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paw 1969, no writ) b duty to read document before signing
3 Hamer v. Hope Cottage Children’s Bureau, 389 S.W.Zd 123, (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1965, no writ) b faihtre to read is not an excuse to revoke
5 Hampshire v. Hampshire, 485 S.W. 2d 314 (Tex.App.,-Ft. Worth 1972, no wit) b in the absence of fraud, one who is legally competent to eontract and voluntarily signs an agreement
without the knowledge of its contents, will be conclusively presumed to have wnswtcd to the terms, and will be charged with the knowledge of the legal effect of the instrument.
207 In fhe interest ofRLD. andKRD., 2001 WL 551165 (Tex.App.-Waco) b Right to effective assistance of wunsel; b Motion for separate trial vs. Motion for separate wunsel; b termination is wnstitutional dimension and even if parties agree to use the same attorney, the case.
may be reversed.
192 In the interest of Af..Uf.L, 3 1 S.W.3D 347 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 2000, no writ) b Court appointed wunscl6 months after suit began docs not violate p 107.013(a)( 1); b Cites Stevenson for distinction between (D) & Q and whether person “knew” he was a parent.
144 In Re: Sondlcy, 990 S.W.Zd 361 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1999, no writ) b Stepparent adoption / termination b Court appointed an attorney because of incarceration b mandamus denied - party must elect status: pro se or represented by wunscl
Endaneerine Conduct
129 In thelnteresf ofR& 971 S.W.2d 160 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, writ denied) b endangering wnduct need not occur in presence of the child b overrules Lane v. Jet&son County CWU 564 S.W.2d 130 b witness testimony admissible as past recollection rewrdcd over hearsay objection
112 Avery v. Sfure of Tows, 963 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1997, no writ) b pursuant to local rule, Harris County Associate Juvenile Court Judge can hear contested termination
CBseS
b evidence that birth mother had her rights terminated to another child 17 years earlier was not too mmote. in time. Course of criminal conduct wntinued
104 In fhelnterest ofD.LR, 943 S.W.Zd 175 (Tex.App.- San Antonio, 1997, no writ) b maternal grandmother attempting to terminate biological father - Court fmds there was not clear and
wnvincing evidence; huther, although father’s criminal conviction can be wnsidered as endangering the. physical and emotional well-being of child a violation of 8 16 1 .OO 1 TFC does not, alone, mandate termination
66 Harris y. Herbers, 838 S.W.Zd 938 (Tex.App.-Houston [Ist Dist.] 1992, no writ) b deftition - clear and convincing
12
k wurse of conduct (arrests) including imprisonment > deftition: means to cxposc to loss or injury; to jeopardirc, wurse of conduct including
imprisonment shows a wursc of conduct which has the effect of endangering the physical or emotional well-being of the child
146 In fhrlnferesf of KXAX, 993 S.W.2d 225 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999. no writ) b birth father filed motion in liminc objecting to evidence wncerning his juvenile adjudication was
denied by trial wurt b Court of Appcak sustained trial wurt because at trial birth father did not object to the juvenile record
testimony presented by 2 witnesses N imprisonment based on voluntary, deliberate and wnscious conduct, even if committed prior to birth
of child subject of termination suit, may be sutficient to support endangering emotional well-being of child
b Court of Appeals distinguishes ‘&&! in that evidence of past criminaJ conduct which shows a present and future danger to tbe chid is suffrcicnt to terminate
39 Stuart v. Tarrant County Child We&e, 677 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.c) b instruction language [overruled by later cases] b act of violence need not be wmmittcd in presence of children
161 IntheInferestofA.M.C.andRRC., 2S.W.3d421(Tex.App.-Waco,1999,nowrit) b Jury nial of BM’s right under endangering conduct and surroundings b Conflict in witnesses testimony as to whether termination was warranted she was making progress
with Dcpt’s assistance b Court aflii jury’s right to evaluate the testimony
13
26 Allred v. HCCPS, 615 SW. 2d 803 (Tex. App. Houston (1st Dist.] 1980, writ refd n.r.c.) b in a termination proceeding, the Court must focus upon the acts and omissions of the parent and also
upon the best interest of the child b Mr. Allred has been in prison since long before the birth of the child, he has failed to provide any
support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child and he has remained apart from the child and failed to support the child since birth. The trial wurt’s finding is fully supported by the evidence
b evidence that Mr. Allred entered into a wursc of wiltid criminal activity with knowledge of his wife’s pregnancy and of the possible consequences of his wurse of conduct implied a conscious disregard and indi&rencc to his parental responsibilities and the subsequent imprisonment for such conduct constituted “voluntary abandonment”
13 In thcZntemt of RJR, 546 S.W.Zd 674 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, ref.n.r.c.) b children not required to witness or observe endangering conduct; lack of self-control and aggression
wnstrucd as endangering the physical and emotional well-being
109 In Re: RR, 950 S.W.Zd 113 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ) b Biological father abused child’s mother, then murdered her, abused drugs and had extensive criminal
background which was endangering conduct warranting termination
67 Dollas CPS v. Bowling, 833 S.W. 2d 730 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ) b Texas Family Code allows the state. to protect a child even though she was born after the conduct
forming the basis for the involuntary termination suit b father argued to trial wurt that the abuse of his oldest son could not endanger other new child
because it ocwrred &fore she was born. “Endanger” under Section [15.02] 161.001 means to expose to loss or injury, or to jwpardize
b section [15.02(1)(E)] 161.001(I)(E) does not require actual and wncrete threat of injury to the child’s emotional and physical well-being. If the evidence shows a course of conduct which has the effect of endangering the child’s physical or emotional well-being, then a fmding under section 161.001(1)(E) is supportable
b father alleges that even if the law does not require that the abuse occur in child’s presence, he had to know that the mother was pregnant before his conduct wuld endanger the child.
b if the evidence shows a course of wnduct that has the effect ofjwpardizing a child’s physical and emotional well-being, then there is evidence to submit the issue to the jury
15 Crowford v. Crmford, 569 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, no tit) b imprisonment plus other conduct warranted termination
174 2nthrInterestofLX(;.,(Houston01-99-00143-CV2/10/000) b If TDPBS terminated on 2 grounds: endangering conduct related to imprisonment and failure to
support g Appellate court reversed stating evidence was insttfXcient
171 Dqvle n FDPRS, 16 S.W.3D 390 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000) b TDPRS attempted to terminate BM on endangerment grounds b Trial wurt reversed because evidence of endangerment was 34 months stale
14
_..
e i. w chwur 44
80 Dupree y. TDPRS, 907 S.W.2d 81 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no tit) * cause of danger to child must be parent’s conduct both acts and omissions or failures to act: relevant
conduct includes what parents did both before and &er child was born, and does not have to be directed at child, nor must actual harm result from conduct.
b use of drugs during pregnancy may be conduct which endangers physical and emotional well-being of child
b if imprisonment of parent IS result of, or is coupled with course of conduct which places child in conditions that endanger, termination may be justified
b in determining whether termination is best interest of child, need for permanence is paramount consideration for child’s present and future physical and emotional needs, and goal of establishing stable, permanent home for child is compelling interest of government
108 Edwards V. TDPRS, 946 S.W.Zd 130 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no tit) b conduct sufficient to terminate on abandonment and endangering conduct where biological father
failed to contact hospital re: bitth or caseworker
34 G.HIIZ u. D.A.H.. 650 S.W.Zd480 (Tex.Civ.App.-[14thDist] 1983, notit)
12 IX H(J. v. SDPW, 543 S.W.Zd 9 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1976, no writ) b appellant asserted that the Court’s judgment was actually based on the fact that he had been
sentenced to a life term in TDC, and he asserts tbat such fact is legally insu&ent to how the conduct described
b appellant claimed that his criminal conduct was actually for the benefit of his children in that he was attempting to swure money with which to begin a business of his own so that he could provide suitable support
p if such imprisonment is tbc result of, or is wupled with, a voluntary, deliberate and conscious wurse of conduct which has the effect of placing or allowing tbc children to remain in conditions which endanger their physically or emotional well-being, a fmding under subparagraphs (B)(E) may be justified
81 In theInterest o/JJ. & K.J., 911 S.W.Zd 437 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995, tit denied)[also known as In the Interest @Johnson/ b in order for parental conduct to constitute endangerment of a child’s well-being, it is not necessary
that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffer irjmy; rather, it is suflicient that the child’s well-being be jeopardized or exposed to loss or injury
b the specific danger to the child’s well-being need not be established as an independent proposition, but may instead be inferred from parental misconduct
> evidence of a parent’s imprisonment may contribute to a finding that the parent engaged in a course of conduct which endangered a child’s physical or emotional well-being
137 In theInterest ofJ.NR, 982 S.W.Zd 137 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1998, no tit) b continued course of criminal conduct sufficient to support termination of birth father’s rights as
endangering conduct > multiple arrests, jail time, violation of parole + conscious wursc of conduct
162 In theInterest of K.C.M., 4 S.W.3d 392 (Tex.App.- Houston [lst Dist.], 1999, no writ) b Termination reversed based on AAL’s opinion and evidence of rehabilitation b Held that termination was not in the best interest of the child
177 In the Interest o/Amber King, 15 S.W.3d 272 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, tit denied)
15
.-
b Conviction for aggravated sexual assault of an 8 year old substantiates termination on endangering conduct ground,
b Appeal based on concept that endangerment cannot be inferred from evidence of parental misconduct alone w);
b Termination of father upheld on endangerment ground based on conviction for sexual assault of niece who was living in the home.
111 Lucas y. TDPRS, 949 S.W.Zd 500 (Tex.App.-Waw 1997,pet. denied) b birth father had committed 4 wunts of aggravated sexual assault against daughter behveen 194-
1995; TDPRS off’ conviction and statement of evidence wherein he admitted wmmitting offenses
* evidence issue of oral report by PRS worker b discusses appellate review of “no evidence” point of error b evidence of course of wnduct directed toward 1 child will support termination as to other children b evidence of spousal abuse will support termination
24 Mayfield v. Smith, 608 S.W.Zd 767 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, no tit)
143 Mcdrano v. TDPRY, No. 13-98-204~CV Corpus Christi) UNPUBLISHED b birth mother wnvicted of injury to a child; sentenced to 20 years in prison b PRS sought termination on remaining children b after trial started, birth mother requested to be present at trial; trial court denied request b held request was not timely.
116 In theInterest ofRD., 955 S.W.2d 365 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) b seal file issue b endangering conduct b appellate standard of review
63 Rod&e v. Car, 828 S.W.Zd 65 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, writ denied) b irresponsible conduct b severance is appropriate. if controversy involves two or more separate and distinct causes of action,
each of which might wnstitute a complete lawsuit
154 In thehfutter of SA., (Houston 14-98-00586CV Houston 14th UNPUBLISHED) F Relevant parental misconduct can include imprisomnent b Conduct need not be wmmitted in child’s presence b No causal wnnection between conduct and child required b Liit on voir dire issue not properly preserved for appellate court to consider
194 In the interest of SE, 32 S.W.3D 3 18 (Tex.App.-San Antonio, 2000, no writ) b Endangering conduct may be course of conduct; b Incarceration is one factor in wurse of conduct; > Imprisonment was prior to the child’s birth
47 In the Interest of SIXA., 728 S.W.Zd 73 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no writ)
135 Segovia v. TDPU, 979 S.W.Zd 785 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1998, tit denied) b wnstitutional challenge must be properly raised at trial court level or = waiver. b endangerment w be inferred 6om parental misconduct
16
191 In the Interest of Stevenson. 27 S.W.3D 195 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no writ) b Termination granted on endangering conduct grounds- reversed b Father cannot be held for conduct prior to his browledge of paternity
49 Tercrs Department of Humon Services, v. Boyd, 727 S.W.Zd 531 (Tex. 1987)
136 In theinterest of X4.&, 979 S.W.Zd 804 (Tcx.A~~.-HoIM~~ [14th Dist.] 1998,writ denied) b court properly terminated mother’s rights b court not required to make a causal connection behveen mother’s drug use and any actual
endangerment or harm to the child b mother failed to preserve alleged error that there was no finding of actual damage to the child
167 Williams y. TDPRS, (Houston 14”’ 14-98-007OOCV UNPUBLISHED) b Termination afliied on ground that endangtig conduct if parent displays a voluntary , deliberate
and conscious wurse of conduct
Endaneerine Environment
68 D.O. y. TuosDepartnwnt of Human Services, 851 S.W.Zd 351 (Tcx.App.-Austin 1993, no writ) b burden of proof on movant seeking to terminate rights b abusive or violent conduct by a parent or other resident of a child’s home cw produce and
environment that endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child b permanent foster care is not in the best interest
168 Green y. TDPM, 25 S.W.3d 213 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000) b Mother’s H convicted of sexual assault with her child, upon release of H, Mother relationship with H
against his probation b TDPRS alleged “knowingly placed in surrounds” ground b Affied on ground that evidence supported endangering surroundings
85 lnRe:MC,D.C&CIK,917S.W.2d268(Tcx.19%) b court of appeals overruled jury’s verdict to terminate mother’s parental rights - insticient evidence
to support termination of mother b supreme court granted Writ of Error; remanded for new trial
[See new trial cite 932 SW2d 35 (85a)]
85a In Re: M.C., DC. & CFK, 932 S.W. 2d 35 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1995) b evidence insuflicient to terminate Mom on grounds of endangering conduct or surroundings b afTumcd in part; reversed in part
63 Rodarte v. Car, 828 S.W.Zd 65 (Tex.App.:Tyler 1992, tit denied) b irresponsible conduct b severance is appropriate if controversy involves hvo or more separate and distinct causes of action,
each of which might constitute a complete lawsuit
79 Spurlock v. TDPRS, 904 S.W. 2d 152 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no tit) b fmding of mental illness does not require scientific certainty that parent will be unable to provide for
child’s needs, but rather, reasonable probability
17
57 Williams v. Toens Department of Human Services, 788 S.W.Zd 922 (Tex.App.- Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1990, no writ)
78 In the Interest of RX, 899 S.W.Zd 772 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no tit) > conduct of a parent in home can product environment or surroundings that endanger the physical and
emotional well-being of c child, “surroundings” does not refer only to physical environment, or acceptability of living wnditions without regard ” conduct of parent
69 Ybarra v. The Texas Dqmrtmenl of Human Services, 869 S.W.Zd 574 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no Writ)
Endnneerinn Surroundins
160 In fhr Infer& ofA.R, San Antonio 04-98-0340~CV UNPUBLISHED > Supports finding of endaagering surroundiogs to terminate birth mother
147 Bueh v. TDPR!( No. 03-98-00369~CV Austin) NOT PUBLISHED > eodangcring surroundings may be established by evidence tbat mother remained married to a man
who repeatedly heat her and the children > mother violated Protective Order and allowed contact behveen husband and her children even though
she resided at battered women’s center
133 In thclnfereaf ofRS.ZI, 977 S.W.2d481 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1998, no writ) > Court of Appeals deleted ground of endangering surroundings based on insutlicient evidence - i.e. no
fwd, no clothing, no school, no toilet training p upheld t ermination oo faihuc to comply with CPS plan i.e. wnstructivc abandonment
~161.001(1)(N) and endangering conduct
174 In thclnferest ofD.E.G., (Houston Ol-99-00143~CV Z/10/000) > If TDPRS terminated on 2 grounds: endangering conduct related to imprisonment and failure to
support p Appellate court reversed stating evidence was insuflicient
90 Djeto v. TDPRS, 928 S.W.Zd 96 (Tex.App.-San Aotonio 1996, no tit) k caonot terminate for failure to support ground unless: judicial admission of paternity; court order; or
unequivocal acknowledgmeot of paternity Q 16 1 .OOl( l)(F). > cannot terminate on “endangering surroundings” prior to rendition of patcmity Q 16 1 .OO 1 (l)(D)
168 Green v. TDPRS, 25 S.W.3d 213 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000) k Mother’s H convicted of sexual assault with her child, upon release of H, Mother relationship with H
against his probation p TDPRS alleged “koowingly placed in suxounds” ground > Affumed on grouod that evidence supported endangering surroundings
151 In thrlnferesf ofJR andClI, 991 S.W.Zd 318 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, notit) k Mother tcknated on “endangering surrounding” ground k Motha and boy&ml had a violent relationship k Issues of timeliness of health care for children disJxssed
18
Evidence
163 In thcInterestofA.MG., 5 S.W.3d 863 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, nowrit) % Appellate issues wnccmed propriety of striking dwmed admissions and failure to grant h4NT p Judgment aftirmed
129 In thelntewst ofRR, 971 S.W.Zd 160 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1998, tit denied) k endangering conduct need not occur in presence of the child 9 ovmules Lane v. Jefferson County CWU 564 S.W.Zd 130 9 witness testimony admissible as past rcwllection recorded over hearsay objection
161 InthcInterestofA.MC.andI?RC., ZS.W.3d421 (Tex.App.-Waco, 1999,nowrit) 9 Jury trial of BM’s tight under endangeting conduct and surroundings 9 Conflict in witnesses testimony as to whether termination was warranted she was making progress
with Dept.‘s assistance 9 Court aflii jury’s right to evaluate the testimony
98 Clinton a Perez, 1997 WL 48941 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi) UNPUBLISHED 9 paternity tests are admissible irrespective of hearsay rules
180 In theInter& ofD.S., 19 S.W.3D 525 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 2000, no tit) 9 Trial court terminated mother 9 Challenge to doctor’s testimony under Daubert denied termination atTumcd
146 In the Interest of&MM, 993 S.W.Zd 225 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999, no writ) 9 birth father tiled motion in limine objecting to evidence wncerning his juvenile adjudication was
denied by trial court 9 Court of Appeals sustained trial court because at trial birth father did not object to the juvenile record
testimony presented by 2 witnesses 9 imprisonment based on voluntary, deliberate and wnscious conduct, even if wmmitted prior to birth
of child subject of termination suit, may be sutIicient to support endangering emotional well-bciig of child
9 Court of Appeals distinguishes &&e! in that evidence of past criminal conduct which shows a present and future danger to the chid is sufficient to terminate
121 In thcZntew.st ofM K, 959 S.W.Zd 661 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, no writ) 9 explanation of appellate standards on review 9 “Close calls” between parent v. non-parent go in favor of parent 9 paternal grandmother wuld not be managing conservator based on birth mother’s voluntary
relinquishment where grandmother did not file intervention within 90 days formerly 914.01(b)(l),(b)(2)
9 “Judicial Notice” TRE 201 discussion_ 9 examples of acts or omissions which show sign&cant impairment
175 Vrkrry v. Solomon, 16 S.W.3D 106 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ) 9 DNA evidence discussed and weight to bc given by court if inconclusive
33 Smith v. M&n, 632 S.W.Zd 390 (Tex.Civ.App.- Austin 1982, tit refd n.r.e) 9 wurt can disregard testimony: circumstantial evidence may sufftce 9 mother’s affidavit of relinquishment was evidence of intent not to return
19
-
9 distinguishes concept of misconduct/abandonment in “intent” ground
198 In the interast of 2X & K r, 39 S.W.3D 355 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ) 9 Jury verdict for termination; 9 Reversed and remanded as to mom because tcmporaty order was admitted into evidence and became
an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence. 9 Mediator’s report attached to Judge’s Temporary Order was also inadmissible as prejudicial and
harmful error
61a TDHS v. Krnessa Wkire, 817 S.W.Zd 62 (Tex. 1991) 9 admission of photograph was not reversible error.
61 Yonessa Hi u ZDHS, 810 S.W.Zd 744 (Tcx.App.-Dallas 1991, reh. denied) 9 picture of adoptive family was prejudicial - “clearIy staged photo” [REVERSED AND
REMANDED in 817 S.W.2d 621
Failure to Sutmort
107 In Re: LIT, 954 S.W.Zd 44 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1997, writ denied) 9 termination granted on faihue to support ground citing $15 1.003 as mandatory duty to support
regardless of whether there is wurt ordered child support for a parent
118 In the Interest of D.LA?, 958 S.W.2d 934 f.Tex.App.--Waco 1997, no writ) 9 8 16 1 .OO 1 (l)(c) - remained away for 6 months - 6 months of failure to support must be consecutive to
fmd tcmination on this ground 9 neglect can endanger a child’s well-being as easily as abusive behavior 9 termination on endangering “wursc of conduct” upheld
90 Djeto v. TDPM, 928 S.W.Zd 96 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) & cannot terminate for faihue to support ground unless: judicial admission of paternity; wurt order; or
unequivocal acknowledgment of paternity #161.001(1)(F). 9 cannot terminate on “endangering surroundings” prior to rendition of paternity 9 16 1 .OO I ( l)(D)
165 In theZnterast of J.M.r, (Waco- lo-99-276~CV 12/l/99) UNPUBLISHED 9 Failure to support ground established and upheld by Court atlibmed
24 Moyfieldv. Smirk, 608 S.W.Zd 767 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, no writ)
14 McCowen v. The State of Texas, 558 S.W.Zd 561 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 114th Dist.] 1977, writ rcfd n.r.e)
59 Rokopuk v. Q@ahaaser, 801 S.W.Zd 53Z (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1990, writ denied) b cannot terminate for failure to support if paternity not established
103 R IK v. TDPRIF, 944 S.W.Zd 437 (Tex.App.- Houston 114th Dist.] 1997, no writ) b presumed father allowed the child to live in a dangerous enviromnent, engaged in conduct that
endangered the child and failed to support. Held when presumed father neglected his parental duties, State properly relied on faihue to support and protect to support termination
122 Span&r u TDPRS, 962 S.W.Zd 253 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998, no tit)
i
20
9 father has a legal duty to support his child even when not ordered by the uial court to make payments > occasional gifts are insufficient to fulfill a parent’s obligation to support. 9 adopts the “higher standard” for appeal
8 Hey v. Spratian, 543 S.W.Zd 349 (Tex. 1976) 9 defmes statutory 18 month period of non support 9 biological rights of parents are constitutionally protected
Final Judement
53 In Re: Hughes, 770 SW. 2d 635 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist] 1989. no writ) 9 wurt held public policy favoring finality and integrity ofjudgment; best interest of the child and
integrity of the judgment both served in denying patent who voluntarily terminated her relationship with the child the right to later adopt the child
200 In the interest of J.H., 39 S.W.3D 688 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ) 9 Issue ofjnrisdiction - Court held 2 trials and entered 2 judgments; however, never signed order for
new trial; 9 Mother’s appeal untimely because 1st judgment was critical date for appellate timetable
86 Wooslq v. Smith/Adoption Alliance, 925 S.W.Zd 84 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) 9 second decree of termination entered during the Court’s plenary period to terminate rights of
heretofore unknown presumed father did not vacate the fust termination decree, was not void and was a valid order
9 wurt held that 1st dccrec was not interlocutor but was fmal “at the time it was entered”. It was while the wurt retained plenary jurisdiction over this case that the presumed father was made a party to the suit
Grandoannt Access
I56 In theInterest ofMXJ.S., I SW.3d 190 (Tex. Amarillo, 1999, no writ) b Maternal Grandparent tiled termination suit involving 1 year old child 9 No ad litem required as child’s interests were adequately represented 9 Paternal Grandparents denied access based on Court’s determination that visitation would not be in
the child’s best interest
197 In theInterest ofM.A.M, 35 S.W.3D 788 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no writ) b Grandparent established sutlkient grounds for standing to intervene seeking termination
91 Raines v. Sugg, 930 S.W.Zd 912 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ) 9 maternal grandparents of children adopted by step-mother a&r death of mother were “grandparents”
as contemplated by grandparent’s access rights statute and, thus, were entitled to avail themselves of access benefits of that statute
9 matcmal grand parents had standing because one biological parent remained (i.e. bio-father).
-
Grandoarent ureference
21
138 In Rc: Webster, 982 S.W.Zd 526 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no tit) b post termination grandparent access case > court’s authority cannot be delegated to PRS to establish times and dates for grandparent access
Grandoarent Visitation
182 Troxel v. Granville, 120 S.Ct. 2054,200O WL 712807 (U.S. Wash.) > Grandparent visitation case; Washing state statute ruled unconstitutional > U.S. Supreme Court ruled state statute was unconstihrtional and stated that absent “uniitness” of a
parent, the state has no right or purpose bttetfeting with a parent’s right to raise hiskr child. Majority opinion by O’Connor
b Fact scenario involved unmarried parents, birth fathex M bii mother remarried, patexnal grandpamnts seek court ordered visitation.
55 Broylcs v. Ashworth, 782 S.W.Zd 31 (Tcx.App.-Fort Worth 1989, no tit)
120 In the Matter ofAdoption ofA.MM., Kansas Appellate Court, 1997, no writ) b ICPC tqtires sbict compliance b review of various state case law decisions canccming ICPC
185 D&y Jubbar v. DCCPS, 19 S.W.3D 870 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, tit dtied) b Reverses state court termination of birth motbex’s parental rights b Mm state’s duty to comply with ICWA especially wben the state’s witness testifies that the birth
mother is a native American b Affirms that burden of proof in ICWA cases is beyond a reasonable doubt
83 Yavapai-Apache Tribe v. Mejia, 906 S.W.Zd 152, (TexApp. Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1995, maod. motion overt.) b denied transfer of termination case to tribal wutt under ICWA upon objection of a m
Ineffective Counsel
145 Leon v. TL’JPRS, No. 03-98-00505 Austin) UNPUBLISHED b notice issue - &termination of adequacy b ineffective counsel argument denied
.- 22
106 Lirrk v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d414 (Tex. 1997) atfied Little v. Smith, 903 S.W.Zd 780 (Tex.App.- Dallas 1995) b Adoptee who asserted claim by which she sought to inherit from her biological grandmother’s estate
could not rely on the discovery rule to &feat the statute of limitations dcfcnsc asserted by grandmother’s heirs.
Intent not to return
94 Corn&on v. Newbury, 932 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no tit)
12 I In the Intcrst of M. I+!, 959 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, no writ) b explanation of appellate standards on review b “Close calls” betweeo parent v. non-parent go in favor of parent b patcmal grandmother could not be managing conservator based on bii mother’s voluntary
relinquishment where grandmother did not file intervention within 90 days formerly 914.01(b)(MW2)
b “Judicial Notice” TRE 201 discussion b examples of acts or omissions which show sign&cant impairment
9 Myers v. Patton, 543 S.W.2d 22 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1976, no tit) b undue tiuence from outsiders insutlicient
77 In theInterest ofRD.S, 902 S.W.Zd 714 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ) b MAR may be used to support fmdiog of “intent not to rehtm”. Decision “frozen” in time
33 Smith v. McLin, 632 S.W.Zd 390 (Tex.Civ.App.- Austin 1982, tit refd n.r.e) b court can disregard testimony: circumstantial evidence may s&ice b mother’s affidavit of relinquishment was evidence of intent not to rehun b distinguishes concept of misconduct/abandonment in “inteot” ground
64 Swinney V. Mosha, 830 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied) b discusses necessity for abandonmentImisconduct ngarding “intent not to return”
16 Barrow v. Durham, 574 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Cbristi 1978, rehearing denied)
16a Durham v. Barrow, 600 S.W.Zd 756 (Tex. 1980)
18 Harris Cou@v Child We&we y. Cakwdar, 590 S.W.2d 596 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1979, no tit)
65 tandty v. Nauls, 83 1 S.W.Zd 603 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1992, no writ)
197 In thcZnterestofM.A.M., 35 S.W.3D 788 (Tex.App.-Ekaumont 2001, no tit) b Grandparent established su5kient grounds for standing to intervene seeking termination
186 In the interest of M T, 21 S.W.3D 925 (Tcx.App.-Beaumont 2000, no writ) b Foster parents had standing to Intcrvenc
23
-
b interveners permitted to adopt although not permitted to initiate suit unda $102.003 b TDPRS brought appeal allowing foster parents to adopt 2 children.
48 Perez v. Wlliutnvon, 726 S.W.Zd 634 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist] 1987)
43 RN& v. Hughes, 842 S.W.Zd 1 (Tex.App.-Waco 1985, rehearing de&d)
127 fiunen v. Swanson, 03-97-00477XV (Austin) UNPUBLISHED b intervention will not be. permitted after final judgment
44 Young v. Young, 693 S.W.Zd 696 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist] 1985, writ dismissed)
Involuntaw Termination
42 Zfolick y. Smith, 685 S.W. 2d 18 (Tex. 1985) reh. overruled. b termination proceed& should be strictly scrutinized and involuntary termination statutes should be
strictly conshued in favor of the parent
23 In the Interest of SRM., 601 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ) b must plead statutory grounds for termination
179 I’& v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3D 750 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, tit denied) b Termination based on Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment reversed
b Agency made representations wncerning post termination/adoption participation which appcllatc wurt held to = fraud in the inducement
b Presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke her voluntary relinquishment of parental rights solely because the adoption agency failed to advise her that an open adoption agreement is not legally enforceable.
Judgment
139 In thrlnterest of ZRR, 986 S.W.Zd 31 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no tit) b Grandparent adoption. b birth mother brought bill of re.view, trial wurt dcnicd b Court of Appeals held a) failure to state specific ground for temGnatioo= prima facie meritorious defense; b) failure. to appoint attorney ad litcm for birth mother was mistake c) evidence supported birth mother’s failures were not due to her own fault
89 Arteaga v. TDPRS, 924 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, tit denied) b court had right to terminate Mexican National father’s parental rights upon fulfilling notice
requirement to Mexican Consulate of proceed@ b father waived wntlict of interest with attorney representing him by failing to bring conflict to trial
judge’s attention
Jurisdiction
71 In rc: Tie, v. N&on, 869 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1994, no tit)
_- 24
86 Woosky v. Smith/Adoption Alliance, 925 S.W.2d 84 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1996. no writ) % second decree of termination entered during the Court’s plenary period to terminate rights of
heretofore unknown presumed fatha did not vacate the fmt termination dccrec, was not void and was a valid order
b wurt held that 1st decree was not interlocutory, but was final “at the time it was entered. It was while the wurt retained plenary jurisdiction over this case that the presumed father was made a pm to the suit.
Jury Instructions
92 Multos v. TZIPZSS, 937 S.W.Zd 560 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) b jury instructions were proper b clear and wnvincing evidence supported termination of parental rights b biological mother’s request to remove GAL denied by Court; upheld on appeal
Juw Reauest
188 In the intemst of K.C. Jr. and LMC., 23 S.W.3D 604 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no writ) b Two fathers terminated on different grounds - 1 endangcmtettt - drug use, incarceration; 2 faihtrc to provide care for child while incarcerati,
b Implied waiver of jury trial does not implicate the 14th amendment.
157 In the Interest of IKZI HI, 2 S.W. 3d 421 (Tcx. App.- San Antonio, 1999, no writ) b Birth mother tiled a jury fee and then did not show up until the 4 th day of trial b Trial Court may not disregard jury request when party fails to appear for trial when her attorney
appeared and announced he was present. b Reversed and remanded for a jury trial
Jurv Selection
70 In theInterest ofA.DE, 880 S.W.Zd 241 (TexApp.-Corpus Christi 1994, no writ)
25
-
Juw Submission
75 Hill v. HilL, 893 S.W.Zd 753 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ)
73 In thelnteresi of J.E, RD., SE und tE minor children, 888 S.W.Zd 140 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ) b authorizes broad form submission b discusses ad litem
58 Toens Zkpurtment of Humcm Services, v. E.K, 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1990) b mandatcs broad form submission to jury
Leeitimiaation
51 In thelnterest of Unnamed&rby McLean, 725 S.W. 2d 696 (Tex. 1987) b the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitution was violated by the statutory scheme for
legitimation which required the biological father to obtain the mother’s wnsent or prove to the Court that legitimation was in the child’s best interest; this wttstituted sex based discrimination
40 8A.L v. The Edno Gludney Home, 677 S.W.Zd 826 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.e) b addresses who can be a notary b agency employee pemtitted to be notary b definition: tricking, outwitting or cheating a person into doing an act he would not have otherwise
done
76 In Re: Buby Girl T, 904 S.W.Zd 206 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no writ) b attorney can achnowledge relinquishment documents under certain circumstances
38 Zn thelnterest ofBuby Girl r, 671 S.W.Zd 654 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.e) b If original petition is tiled prior to birth and termination is granted before 5 days after birth the order
is void; 5 days mandatory statutory provision
128 In theInter& ofBuby GirlBruno, 974 S.W.2d 40l(TexApp.-San Antonio 1998, no writ) b Mother’s affidavit upheld b Agency employee may notarize b 2 witnesses need not know birth mother or contents of documents b permits pre-suit waiver of citation
37 LMlus County Child Wev4re v. l%ompson, 667 S.W.2d 282 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1984, no writ)
45 Mutin v. Mooney, 695 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, no writ)
27 S.A.S.. v. C4tholicF4mi~Services,613 S.W.2d540(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1981, nowrit)
26
- .,...-
145 Leon v. TDPRS, No. 03-98-00505 Austin) UNPUBLISHED b notice issue - determination of adequacy b ineffective counsel argument denied
Overreaching
40 B.A.L v, The Edno Gludney Home, 677 S.W.Zd 826 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.e) b addresses who can be a notaty b agency employee permitted to be. notary b deftition: tricking, ouhvitting or cheating a person into doing an act he would not have otherwise
done.
179 &I4 v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3D 750 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, writ denied) b Termination based on Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment reversed b Agency made representations wncerning post termination/adoption participation which appellate
wurt held to = 6aud in the inducement b Presents the question of whether a birth mother can revoke her voluntary relinquishment of parental
rights solely because the adoption agency failed to advise her that an open adoption agreement is not legally enforceable.
Parental Preference
1 Austin v. Collins, 200 S.W.Zd 666, (Tcx.Civ.App.- Ft. Worth 1947, writ rcfd n.r.e) b voluntary relinquishment forfeits parental preference
97 In the Interest of Hidaigo, 938 S.W.Zd 492 (Tcx.App.- Texarkana 1996, no writ) b stepmother awarded custody ather biological father’s death - rebutting presumption that biological
mother should be appointed managing wnservator
140 Mankin v. DeLaRos4, No. OS-96-01197~CV Dallas) UNPUBLISHED b focus in a termination case is on the parent, while focus in a conservatorship case is on the child’s
best interest b wurt discusses Rodrieuez and &&ljgg b court applied wrong standard: termination upheld; conservatorship decision reversed and remanded
99 In theInterest ofRodriguez, 940 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, writ denied) b non-parents satisfy I..cwelling test that their appointment supersedes biological dad bawd on the
psychological evidence of trauma of removal from adoptive home; best interest test overwmes presumption of appointment of parent as managing conservator.
35 In theZnferest ofS.D.S, 648 S.W.Zd 351 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1983, writ refd n.r.c)
Parental Rinhts
6 Stunky v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) b the Court held that the unwed father was entitled to citation and notice of a suit for termination. The
biological parcntal rights are “far more precious than property rights”
27
-
Paternity
88 In Re: A.L.l dk/aA.LE., 929 S.W.Zd 467 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, no writ) p divorce decree established parent-child relationship = bar to further suit for paternity > adjudication of paternity and termination io divorce dccrcc establishes biological father; canoot sue
other man to establish paternity
96 In thcZnterst ofAM., 936 S.W.Zd 59 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) p interprctationof~161.110(f)asstatoteofliitations&rlnrc:J.W.T.
95 In thalnterest ofA.SL, 923 S.W.Zd 814 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, no writ) > post-death paternity suit permitted
181 In rc: CRM., (Beaumont -No. 09-98-098~CV - 4/20/00) > Vol. paternity suit wherein birth father challenged court’s fmdings on visitation & name change b CCA ruled that court did not abuse its discretion in not giving the child the father’s surname.
98 Clinton v. Prrct, 1997 WL 48941 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi) UNPUBLISHED > paternity tests arc admissible irrespective of hearsay roles
113 In thclnterest of JAM., 945 S.W.Zd 320 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) b genetic test results were admissible without regard as to whether they met the business records
exception to hearsay rule. ~160.109@)
114 In thrlnterest ofJ. K!I, 945 S.W.2d 911 (Tcx.App.-Beaumont 1997, no tit) -remand from 872 I S.W.2d 189 (Tax 1994) k burden of proof to establish non-paternity is on persons opposing the paternity action. p court found as matter of law that probable father, not presumed father, is the biological father.
173 In theInterest ofhf WX, (San Antonio 04-98-00754~CV)
124 In theMatter ofthr Marriage ofMorales, 968 S.W.2d SO8 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no writ) b child can have only 1 legal father. b parent means citha prcsomcd biological father or adjudicated biological father. p if the child is not “of the marriage” sevcraocc is available
152 In thrZnterestof O.GM., 988 S.W.2d 473 (TcxApp. -Houston (1st Dist.] 1.999, tit granted; disnlissed by parties) > Paternity of child born through in vitro fertilization b Issues concerned right to parentage after divorce when embryos were created prior to divorce
: 28
142 In Re: the Esfnfe of Sanchez. No. 04-98-00456~CV - San Antonio) UNPUl3LISHED b paternity prcsunrption b where evidence shows that deceased died before child was born, but it does not show that he died less
than 300 days before child was born, no presumption of paternity established under 9 15 l.O02(a)( 1) b party assert&g presumption bears burden of proof b party denying presumption bears burden of rebutting it
203 TDPRSv. Sherry,2001 WL421219(Tex.) b Paternity determination case; b $160.007(a)(l); b “An alleged father” does not have standing per 6 102.003 TFC despite lack of notice in prior AG
case wherein another man was adjudicated the father.
175 kS&ry v. Solomon, 16 S.W.3D 106 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ) b DNA evidence discussed and weight to be given by court if inconchtsive
Pleadines
183 Bartell v. Lohiscr, (6th Cir. 2000 Fed App. 0 194P (6th Cir.) 6/7/00) b Termination of mother’s rights case where child was physically and mentally challenged and mother
had extreme mental issues herself b Post termination, birth mother tiles suit in federal court alleging violation of ADA and Rehabilitation
Act b Issue of qualified immunity tirn liability.
153 In theInterest of CM., 996 S.W.Zd 269 (Texas App- Houston [lst Dist.], 1999, no writ) b Mother failed to raise issue of aRiiative defense of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in her
pleadings b Affirmative defense must be plead and proven
17 Murrhcws v. Simmons, 589 S.W.Zd 156 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979, nowrit) b authorizes alternative pleadings
23 In the Interest of S&U., 601 S.W.Zd 766 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, no writ) b must plead statutory grounds for termination
209 TDPRS v. J&y., 2001 WL 627586 (Tex.App.-Houston (14th Dist.]) b Appointment of Posscssoty Conservator without pleadings to support appointment; b Possessions periods too vague; b No home study; b No best interest Case remanded as to above issues _.
29
Pm-suit Waiver
128 In thelnterest ofBoby GirlBruno, 974 S.W.Zd 4Ol(TexApp.-San Antonio 1998, no writ) b Mother’s atlidavit upheld b Agency employee may notarize b 2 witnesses need not hnow birth mother or contents of documents b permits pm-suit waiver of citation
56 Zvy v. The Edna Gladnly Home, 783 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, no writ) b pre-suit waiver of citation approved
54 In thelnterest ofMc4do, 780 S.W.Zd 307 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1989, tit denied)
27 SAX.. v. CutholicFumi~Services,613 S.W.2dS4O(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1981, nowrit)
Procedure - Motion for New Trial
117 In the Interest of J.(BB)M, 955 S.W.Zd 405 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) b motion for new trial discretionary with court
Procedure
163 In thelnterat ofA.MG., S S.W.3d 863 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, nowrit) b Appellate issues concerned propriety of striking deemed admissions and faihne to grant MNT b Judgnmntafthmed
207 In the interest ofRLD. undRRD., 2001 WL 551165 (Tex.App.-Waco) b Right to et&the assistance of wunscl; b Motion for separate trial vs. Motion for separate wunsel; b termination is wnstitutional dimension and even if parties agree to use the same attorney, the case
may he reversed.
201 In the interest of KR Hi, 41 S.W.3D 183 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] ZOOO), see wrif hisrory tire 42 S. W3d 544 b Birth mother entitled to due process under TRCP 245 wnwrning trial date. Her request per TRCP
2 16 was timely because petitioner did not provide 45 days notice of fint trial setting b Prospective adoptive parents petition to terminate birth mother; b Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment = prima facie evidence of its validity; b Notary - neither the witnesses nor the notary must be physically present when paren signs the
mother’s aRidavit of rehnquishmwt.
178 Zunigu v. Zuniga, 13 S.W.3d 798 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no writ) b Father excluded from divorce and termination proceedings b Post-answer default judgment improper
,
30
Qualified Immunitv.
183 Bartell v. Lohiser, (6th Cir 2000 Fed App. 0194P (6th Cir) 6/7/00) b Termination of mother’s rights case where child was physically and mentally challenged and mother
had extreme mental issues herself b Post termination, birth mother tiles suit in federal court alleging violation of ADA and Rehabilitation
Act b Issue of qualiticd immunity from liability.
Res Judicata
88 In Re: A.LJ. &aA.LE., 929 S.W.Zd 467 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, no writ) b divorce decree established parent-child relationship = bar to further suit for paternity b adjudication of paternity and termination in divorce decree establishes biological father; cannot sue
other man to establish paternity
Revocation
30 Brown v. McLennan, 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982)
2 Catholic Charities v. Harper, 337 S.W.2d 111, (Tex. 1960) b establishes fraud, duress or overreaching as grounds to revoke
60 Colemun v. Smallwood, 800 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, no writ) b minors permitted to execute atfdavits
3 Homer v. Hope Cottage Children’s Bureau, 389 S.W.Zd 123, (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1965, no writ) b failme to read is not an excuse to revoke
9 Myers v. Patton, 543 S.W.Zd 22 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1976, no writ) b undue inIlumce from outsiders insuRicimt
62 Neal v. TcrosLkpartmcnf o/Human Services, 814 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied) b husband’s intlumce = undue inllucnce
7 Pattison v. Spratlan, 535 S.W.2d 48, (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1976, rehearing denied)
10 Rogers v. Sea&, 544 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1976)
3 1 Ruff v. Christian Services of the Southwest, 627 S.W.Zd 799 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1982, no writ) b mother’s Aflhiavit of Relinquishmmt = prima facie evidence b no need for jury questions on best inter& whm unwntrovcrted
32 Terreil v.Chambers, 630 S.W.Zd 800 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1982, no writ)
31
Sealed File
116 In thelnterest ofRD., 955 S.W.Zd 365 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) b seal file issue b mdangetig conduct b appellate standard of review
Seoarstion of Siblines
72 RS.. v. BJL, 883 S.W.Zd 711 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, nowrit)
Severance
124 In the Matter of theMarriage ofMorales, 968 S.W.Zd 508 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no writ) b child can have only 1 legal father. b parent means either presumed biological father or adjudicated biological father. b if the child is not “of the marriage” severance. is available
63 Rodarte v. Car, 828 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, writ denied) b irresponsible conduct b severance is appropriate if controversy involves two or more separate and distinct causes of action,
each of which might wnstitute a complete lawsuit
Standine
16a Durham v. Burrow, 600 S.W.Zd 756 (Tax. 1980)
16 Barrow v. Durham, 574 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, rehearing denied)
115 Fowler v. Jones, 949 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, granted, reversed) - See 11Sa b statute g 102.003(9) wnfcrs standing on person who has had care, wntrol and possession of child for
@pi six month period - does not require “immediately preceding” b involves same sex couple custody dispute
lISaJones u Fowler, Tx.S.Ct. May 1998 reversed Fowler v. Jones 949 S.W.2d 44 b legislature did not intend a substantive change to broaden standing to bring SAPCR b standing under 1002.003(a) requires actual care, custody and control for 6 months immediately
precedippfilmg of suit
105 In Re: Garcia, 07-96-0304~CV (Tex.Apfr:-Amarillo 1997) b trial wurt dismissed with prejudice a suit fdrd by non-relatives who did not have actual care, wntrol
and possession of child for 6 months preceding tiling SAPCR for managing conservator
18 Harris County Child Weljare v. Caloudas, 590 S.W.Zd 596 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1979, no writ)
. - 32
114 In theInterest of J. WZZ, 945 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no writ) - remand from 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex 1994) b burden of proof to establish non-paternity is on persons opposing the paternity action. b court found as matter of law that probable father, not presumed father, is the biological father.
65 Londry v. N&s, 831 S.W.Zd 603 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ)
197 In theInterest ofM.A.M., 35 S.W.3D 788 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no writ) b Grandparent established sulIicie.nt grounds for standing to intervene seeking termination
186 In the interest of M r, 21 S.W.3D 925 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no tit) b Foster parmts had standing to Intervene b Intervmors permitted to adopt although not permitted to initiate suit under Q102.003 b TDPRS brought appeal allowing foster parents to adopt 2 chikirm.
48 Perez v. WXamson, 726 S.W.2d 634 (Tcx.App.- Houston [14tb Dist] 1987)
43 Ready v. Hugha, 842 S.W.Zd 1 (Tex.App.-Waco 1985, rehearing denied)
44 Young v. Young, 693 S.W.2d 696 (Tcx.App.- Houston [14th Dist] 1985, writ dismissed)
Sterwmrent adootion
144 In Re: Sondley, 990 S.W.Zd 361 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1999, no writ) b Stepparent adoption / termination b Court appointed an attorney because of incarceration b mandamus denied -party must elect status: pro se or represmtcd by counsel
82 Glover v. Brozorio CPS, 916 S.W.2d 19 (TexApp. Houston [lst Dist.] 1995, no tit) b reversed termination because summary judgment evidence was insuffcimt
86 WoosIcy v. SmithLAdoption Alliance, 925 S.W.2d 84 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no tit) b second decree of termination entered during the Court’s plenary period to terminate rights of
heretofore unknot presumed father did not vacate the fust termination decree, was not void and was a valid order
b wurt held that 1st decree was not interlocutory, but was foal “at the time it was entered”. It was while the wurt retained plenary jurisdiction over this case that the presumed father was made a party to the suit.
Two Year Criminal
m In theInterest of Caballero, 2001 WL 252096 (Amarillo 07-00-0278~CV, 04/16/01) b Once TDPRS proves incarceration for more than two years as ground for tnmination, the parent
must presmt some evidence of how she intends to care and provide for child.
33
--
164 In theZnterest of NXR, (Dallas 05-99-00198~CV UNPUBLISHED) b Statutory ground- criminal conduct which results in imprisonment for not less than two years
discussed and upheld
199 Kduurri v. Enscy., 2001 WL 123766 (Amarillo 07-00-0123~CV 2/14/01) h Step-parent adoption; no evidence to support termination based on conviction of serious injury to a
child, Trial court reversed. b Standard of review
134 In rc: J@ies, 979 S.W.Zd 429 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, no writ) > writ of mandamus will issue if relator cart show clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy at
law > UCCJA issue may be raised at anytime during litigation b mandamus denied because Texas had jurisdictional priority under UCCJA
141 In Re: Lumbert, 993 S.W.Zd 123 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1999, no writ) b mantbmtus proceeding b UCCJA precludes trial court to exercise jurisdiction over bill of review to set aside fmal termination
judgment
Undue Influence
40 RA.L v. The E&m Gladmy Home, 677 S.W.Zd 826 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.e) b addresses who can be a notary b agency employee permitted to be notary b definition: tricking, ouhvitting or cheating a person into doing an act he would not have otherwise
done
20 Methodist Miision Home of Tcrar v. N-A-B-, 451 S.W. 2d 539 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1979, no wit) b defines “Undue lntluence” and further states that calling various considerations to the attention of the
birth mother cannot be. branded as undue influence “even though she is thereby induced to give up her child”
62 Neal v. Tern Dqmrtment of Human Services, 8 14 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, writ denied) b husband’s inlhtence = undue influence
179 &lo v. hfarpvood, 17 S.W.3D 750 (Te.x.App.-Austin 2000, writ denied) b Terminabon based on Mother’s Aftldavit of Relinquishment reversed b Agency made representations concerning post termination/adoption participation which appellate
court held to = fraud in the inducement b Preaenta the question of whether a bii mother can revoke her voluntary relinquishment of parental
rights solely because the adoption agency failed to advise her that an open adoption agreemcnt is not legally enforceable.
&gg
34
148 Anorney General Opinion, Advertising b Statutory prohibition to advertising except for agencies
131 In thelnterest ofS.0. mdK.D., 980 S.W.Zd 758 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, vwit denied) b venue issue: in a suit to terminate where parents and children are transients, venue is proper where
parents agree to try the case b principle: “Any party to a lawsuit may expressly or iropliedly waive rights conferred upon him by a
venue statute” b venue is a matter of personal privilege that may be waived
Waiting Period - 5 dav (when oetition is tiled as unborn Babv “X”)
38 In thelnterest o/Baby Girl r, 671 S.W.Zd 654 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.c) b If original petition is tiled prior to birth and termination is granted before 5 days after birth the order
is void; 5 days mandatory statutory provision
Waiting oeriod - 48 hours
84 Sims x TkeAdoption Alliance, 922 S.W.Zd 213 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, writ denied) b 48 hour rule is retroactive to all pending cases as of 9/l/9.
148 Artornq Gcncral Opinion, Advertising b Statutory prohibition to advertising except for agencies
101 G.S.K. v. T.K.N., 940 S.W.2d 797 (Tex.App.- El Paso 1997, nowrit) b stepparent adoption; biological father cited by publication; default termination taken; no record;
biological father filed writ of error - no record, thus, no statement of facts, therefore invalid termination/adoption
13 I In theInterest of SD. and K.D., 980 S.W.Zd 758 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1998, writ denied) b venue issue: in a suit to terminate where parents and children arc transients, venue is proper where
parents agree to tiy the case b principle: “Any party to a lawsuit may expressly or implicdly waive rights conferred upon him by a
venue statute” b venue is a matter of personal privilege that may be waived
52 Torra y. Lloyd, 749 S.W. 2d 214 (Tcx.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1988, no tit) b stands for the proposition that a parent who voluntarily waives their rights to be notified or appear at
a proceeding to terminate parental rights is not entitled to a new trial when a termination order is entered in their absence, nohvithstanding attempts to revoke the waiver
35
TERMINATION/ADOPTION CASE LAW CHRONOLOGICAL LIST
1 Austin v. Collins, 200 S.W.Zd 666, (Tex.Civ.App.- Ft. Worth 1947, wit refd n.r.e)
2 Catholic Charities v. Harper, 337 S.W.Zd 111, (Tax. 1960)
3 Homer v. Hope Cottage Children’s Bureau, 389 S.W.Zd 123, (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1965, no wit)
4 Hall Y. Hayes, 441 S.W.Zd 275, (Tcx.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, no wit)
5 Hampshire v. Hampshire, 485 SW. 2d 3 14 (Tax.App.,-Ft. Worth 1972, no writ)
6 Stmdey v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972)
7 P&son v. SpratIan, 535 S.W.Zd 48, (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1976, rchedring denied)
8 mlq v. Sprat@ 543 S.W.Zd 349 (Tax. 1976)
9 Myers v. Patton, 543 S.W.Zd 22 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1976, no writ)
10 Rogers v. Searle, 544 S.W.Zd 114 (Tex. 1976)
11 Halley v. Adams, 544 S.W.Zd 367 (Tex. 1976)
12 H.WJ. v. SDPW, 543 S.W.2d 9 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1976, no wit)
13 In theinterest ofRJ.B, 546 S.W.2d 674 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1977, ref.n.r.e.)
14 McGowan y. TkeState of Tsar, 558 S.W.2d 561 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1977, tit refd n.cc)
15 Crawfordx Crmvford, 569 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1978, no wit)
16 Burrow v. Durham, 574 S.W.2d 857 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, rehearing denied)
16a Durham x Barrow, 600 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1980)
17 Matthews y. Simmons, 589 S.W.2d 156 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979, no wit)
18 Harris Counly Child We&iie v. Caloudas, 590 S.W.2d 596 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1979, no wit)
19 In thelnterest of SD.H., 591 S.W.2d 63i (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1979, no wit)
20 Methodtit Mission Home of Trros v. N-A-B- 451 SW. 2d 539 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1979, no wit)
21 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1980)
22 In Re: RRF., 595 S.W.Zd 873 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1980, no tit) 23 In thelnterest of SRM., 601 S.W.Zd 766 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1980, no wit)
_.
--
24 Mayfield v. Smith, 608 S.W.2d 767 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1980, no wit)
25 In IheZnteresf of GM. 596 S.W. 2d 846 (Tex. 1980)
26 Allred v. HCCPS, 615 S.W. 2d 803 (Tcx. App. Houston [ 1st Dist.) 1980, writ refd MC.)
27 SAX.. v. Catholic Fami~ Services, 613 S.W.Zd 540 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1981, no writ)
28 Najar v. Oman, 624 S.W.Zd 385 (Tex.Civ.App. -Austin 1981, rehearing denied)
29 Diaz v. Bqw, 611 S.W.Zd 726 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1981, wit refd n.r.e)
30 Brown v. McLennan, 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982)
3 1 Ruff v. Christion Services of the Southwest, 627 S.W.2d 199 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyla 1982, no writ)
32 Tmell v.Chambers, 630 S.W.2d 800 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Tyler 1982, no writ)
33 Smith v. McLin, 632 S.W.2d 390 (Tex.Civ.App.- Austin 1982, wit refd n.r.c)
34 G.WH. v. D.A.H., 650S.W.2d480(Tex.Civ.App.-(14thDist] 1983, nowrit)
35 In fhelnteresr of S.D.S., 648 S.W.Zd 35 1 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1983, wit rcfd me)
36 In theZn~erestofD.E. WI, 654 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fen Worth 1983, writ refd me)
37 Dollas County Child Welfare v. Thompson, 667 S.W.Zd 282 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1984, no tit)
38 In IhcZntemsf of Baby Girl T, 671 S.W.Zd 654 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, writ refd n.r.c)
39 Stuart v. Tarranl County Child We/~&e, 677 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, wit refd n.r.e)
40 KA.L v. The Edna Gladney Home, 677 S.W.Zd 826 (Tcx.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1984, wit refd n.r.c)
41 Richardson v. Green, 677 S W. 2d 497 (Tex. 1984)
42 Holick y. Smith, 685 S.W. 2d 18 (Tex. 1985) reh. overruled.
43 Ready v. Hughes, 842 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.App.-Waco 1985, rehearing denied)
44 Young v. Youag, 693 S.W.Zd 696 (Tex.App.- Houston [lSth Dist] 1985, wit dismissed)
45 Matin v. Moonq, 695 S.W.2d 211 (Tex.App.-Austin 1985, no wit)
46 Byrne v. Cafholic Churities, 710 S.W.Zd 780 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, no wit)
47 In rhelnterest of SH.A., 728 S.W.Zd 73 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1987, no wit)
48 Perez v. WQkwmon, 726 S.W.Zd 634 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist) 1987) 49 Tnns Deporrmenf of Hutnm Services, y. Boyd, 727 S.W.Zd 53 1 (Tex. 1987)
37
50 In theInterestofA.K.S, 736 S.W.2d 145 (Tax.App.-Beaumont 1987, no wit)
51 In thelnterest of IJnnamedBoby McLean, 725 SW. 2d 696 (Tex. 1987)
52 Torres v. Lloyd, 749 SW. 2d 214 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1988, no wit)
53 In Re: Hughes, 770 S.W. 2d 635 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist] 1989. no writ)
54 In theInterest ofMc4da, 780 S.W.Zd 307 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1989, wit denied)
55 Broyles v. Ashworth, 782 S.W.Zd 31 (Tax.App.-Fort Worth 1989, no writ)
56 Ivy v. The Edno Gladncy Home, 783 S.W.Zd 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, no wit)
57 UWiums v. TaosDepa~menl ofHuman Services, 788 S.W.Zd 922 (Tex.App.- Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1990, no wit)
58 Teras Department of Human Services, v. EB, 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1990)
59 Rokopuk v. Q&nhuuser, 801 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.] 1990, wit denied)
60 Coleman v. Smulbood, 800 S.W.Zd 353 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1990, no wit)
61 Vinasa K v. TDHS, 810 S.W.Zd 744 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, reh. denied)
61a TDHSv. Vonesso Whife, 817 S.W.Zd62 (Tex. 1991) !.
62 Neal v. Texus Department of Humon Scrvicw, 814 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1991, wit denied)
63 Rodarte v. Car, 828 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, writ denied)
64 Swinney v. Moshu, 830 S.W.Zd 187 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, wit denied)
65 Landry v. Nuuis, 831 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no wit)
66 Hurris v. Herbem, 838 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1992, no wit)
67 Dallas CPS v. Bowling, 833 S.W. 2d 730 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no wit)
68 DO. v. TcxnsDeporfment of Human Services, 851 S.W.Zd 351 (Tex.App.-Austin 1993, no wit)
69 Ybarra v. The Texus Department of Human Services, 869 S.W.2d 574 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1993, no wit)
70 In thelnferesf ofA.lM., 880 S.W.Zd 241 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1994, no wit)
71 In re: me, v. Nelson, 869 S.W.2d 603 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1994, no wit)
72 RX. v. RU, 883 S.W.Zd 711 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, notit) f 73 In the Interest of JR, KD., SE and TE minor children, 888 S.W.2d 140 (Tax.App.-Tyler 1994, no writ)
38
74 Trevino v. The Taos Lkportmeot of Rotective und Regulatory Services, 893 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Austh 1995, no wit)
75 Hills. Hib!, 893 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ)
76 In Re: Buby Girl T, 904 S.W.2d 206 (Tcx.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no writ)
77 In theZnterestofRD.S, 902 S.W.Zd 714 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1995, no writ)
78 In theluterest of KY., 899 S.W.Zd 772 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1995, no wit)
79 Spurlock v. TDPRS, 904 S.W. 2d 152 (Tcx.App.-Austin 1995, no wit)
80 Dupree v. TDPRS, 907 S.W.Zd 81 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995, no wit)
81 In the Znterest of .ZJ & ZU, 911 S.W.Zd 437 (Tcx.App.-Tcxarkana 1995, tit deniad)[also known as In the Interest ofJohnson]
82 Glow v. Bruzorio CPS, 916 S.W.Zd 19 (Tex.App. Houston [lst Dist.] 1995, no wit)
83 Yawpoi-Apache Tribe v. Mejio, 906 S.W.Zd 152, (Tex.App. Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1995, mand. motion overr.)
84 Sims v. The Adoption Allionce, 922 S.W.Zd 213 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1996, wit denied)
85 ZnRe:M.C.,D.C.&C.UC,917S.W.2d268(Tex.l996)
85a InRe:MC.,DC. &C.KI,932S.W.2d35(Tex.App.-Eastland 1995)
86 Woos& v. SmitMAdoption Alliance, 925 S.W.Zd 84 (Tax.App.-San Antonio 1996, no wit)
87 Ryder v. St&e of Texas, 917 S.W. 2d 503, (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no tit)
88 In Re: A.LJ &aA.LE., 929 S.W.Zd 467 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1996, no wit)
89 Arteugu v. TDPRS, 924 S.W.2d 756 (Tex.App.-Austin 1996, wit denied)
90 Djeto v. TDPRS, 928 S.W.2d 96 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no wit)
91 Roines v. Sugg, 930 S.W.Zd 912 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no wit)
92 Multos v. TDPRS, 937 S.W.Zd 560 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no wit)
93 Aguirre v. TDPRS, 917 S.W.Zd 462 (Tex.App-Austin 1996, no writ)
94 Cornelison v. Newbury, 932 S.W.2d 729 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no wit)
95 In theInterest ofA.SL, 923 S.W.Zd 814 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1996, no wit)
96 In theInterest ofA.M, 936 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ)
39
97 In the bteres~ of Hiduigo, 938 S.W.Zd 492 (Tex.App.- Texarkana 1996, no tit)
98 Clinton v. Perez, 1997 WL 48941 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi) UNPUBLISHED
99 In the In&re.a ofRodriguez, 940 S.W.Zd 265 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, wit denied)
100 Guerro v. TDPRS, 940 S.W.2d 295 (Tex.App.- San Antonio 1997, no wit)
101 G.SK. v. LK.h!, 940 S.W.Zd 797 (Tex.App.- El Paso 1997, no wit)
102 In Re: RA.T, RLI: RRTandK Z, 938 S.W.Zd 783 (Tex.App.- Eastland 1997, wit denied)
103 RN v. TLlPRY, 944 S.W.Zd 437 (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no wit)
104 In lhelnteresr ofDLR, 943 S.W.Zd 175 (Tex.App.- San Antonio, 1997, no wit)
105 In Re: Cur&, 07-96-0304-CV (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1997)
106 Littfev. Smifh, 943 S.W.Zd 414 (Tex. 1997) afGmcdLiftle v. Smith, 903 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995)
107 In Re: & YR, 954 S.W.Zd 44 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 1997, wit denied)
108 Edwuruk v. TDPRY, 946 S.W.2d 130 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no wit)
109 In Re: RR, 950 S.W.Zd 113 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no wit)
110 In the Interest of H.C. ondS.C. 942 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, n.w.h.)
111 Lucas v. TDPRS, 949 S.W.Zd 500 (Tex.App.-Waco 1997, pet. denied)
112 Avery v. Stoic of Tuns, 963 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1997, no tit)
113 In lheZn&rest of J.A.M., 945 S.W.Zd 320 (Te~App.--San Antonio 1997, no wit)
114 In theIntere.stof J.HIT, 945 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1997, no wit) - remand from 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tax 1994)
115 Fowkr v. Jones, 949 S.W.Zd 442 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997, granted, reversed) - See 115a
115a3ones v. Fmvler, Tx.S.Ct. May 1998 reversed Fowlcr v. Jones 949 S.W.Zd 44
116 In theZn&rutofRD., 955 S.W.Zd 365 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no wit)
117 In ~heZn&res~ of X(BB)M, 955 S.W.Zd 405 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no wit)
118 In rheZn&rcs~ ofD.LN, 958 S.W.Zd 934 (Tex.App.-Waw 1997, no wit) 119 In rheIn&mt of CD. ondBf?, 962 S.W.Zd 145 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 1998, no wit)
120 In theMutter o/Adoption ofA.M.M, Kansas Appellata Court, 1997, no wit)
121 In ~hrlnterest ofiw. Iti, 959 S.W.Zd 661 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, no wit)
122 Spangler v. TDPRS, 962 S.W.Zd 253 (Tex.App.--Tyler 1998, no writ)
123 In rhcZnterest of .I.NR, 01-97-01036~CV (Houston, July 16,1998)
124 In theMafter of theMarriage ofMorales, 968 S.W.2d 508 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no writ)
125 In the Infer& of Show, 966 S.W.Zd I74 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, no wit)
126 Ham v. TDPRS, 969 S.W.2d 77 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, tit denied)
127 fieman v. Swanson, 03-97-00477~CV (Austin) UNPUBLISHED
128 In thrZntcrestofBoby GirlBruno, 974 S.W.2d 401(TexApp.-San Antonio 1998, no wit)
129 In the Interest of RR, 971 S.W.Zd 160 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, wit denied)
130 Harris County CPSx Olvero, 971 S.W.Zd 172 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, wit denied)
131 Zn theInterest of S.D. ond K.D., 980 S.W.2d 758 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, wit denied)
132 Kzrgas v. TDPRS.., 973 S.W.Zd 423 (Tex.App.-Austin 1998) Review granted, Decision set aside January 14, 1999.
133 In rheZn&wst of RS. T, 977 S.W.Zd 48 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist] 1998, no tit)
134 In re: Jeffries. 979 S.W.Zd 429 (Tex.App.-Waco 1998, no wit)
135 Segovia v. TDPRS, 979 S.W.2d 785 (Tcx.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1998, tit denied)
136 In theZnterestof MA&, 979 S.W.2d 804 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998,wit denied)
137 In theInterest of J&R, 982 S.W.Zd 137 (Tcx.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 1998, no wit)
138 In Re: Webster, 982 S.W.Zd 526 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1998, no wit)
139 In thcznteresf of TRR, 986 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no writ)
140 Monkin v. DeLoRosa, No. OS-96-01197~CV Dallas) UNPUBLISHED
141 In Re: Lombert, 993 S.W.Zd 123 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio 1999, no writ)
142 In Rc: the E&h of Son&z, No. 04-98-00456~CV - San Antonio) UNPUBLlSHED
143 Medrono v. TDPRS, No. 13-98-204-CV Corpus Christi) UNPUBLISHED
144 In Re: Sondley, 990 S.W.Zd 361 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1999, no wit)
145 Leon v. TDPZE, No. 03-98-00505 Austin) UNPUBLISHED
41
-
146 In thelnterest of K.M.M., 993 S.W.Zd 225 (Tex.App.-Eastland 1999, no writ)
147 Bach v. ZDPZU, No. 03-98-00369~CV Austin) NOT PUBLISHED
148 Attorney General @inion, Advertising
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
_*
Spiers y. Mqhs, 970 S.W.Zd 166 (Tex. App.- Ft Worth 1998, no wit)
TDPRS, 990 S.W.Zd 848 (Tcx.App.- AmtiIIo 1999, no writ)
Zn theznterest of JR and CT:, 991 S.W.2d 318 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1999, no wit)
In thelnterest of O.G.M., 988 S.W.2d 473 (Tex.App. -Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1999, wit granti, dismissed by parties)
In thelnterest of CM, 996 S.W.Zd 269 (Texas App- Houston [lst Dist.], 1999, no wit)
Zn thchfatfer of SA., (Houston 14-98-00586~CV Houston 14th UNPUBLISHED)
In theZnferaf of Z?R, 994 SW. 2d 411 (Tcx.App.- Fort Worth 1999, dism. w.o.)
In thelnterest ofhf.D.S, 1 SW.3d 190 (Tex. Amarillo, 1999, no wit)
In the Interest of KB HI, 2 SW. 3d 421 (Tex. App.- San Antonio, 1999, no wit)
In thelnterest of K.R, 22 SW. 3rd 85 (Tcx.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no wit)
In the Interest of LX G., 5 S.W.3d 769 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no writ)
In the Znrerest ofA.R, San Antonio 04-98-034OXV UNPUBLISHED
Zn thelnterest 0fA.M.C. andZ?RC., 2 S.W.3d 421 (Tex. App.- Waco, 1999, no wit)
In thelntereat ofK.CM., 4 S.W.3d 392 (Tex.App.- Houston [Ist Dist.], 1999, no wit)
ZntheZnterestofA.MG.,S S.W.3d863(Tcx.App.-SanAntonio 1999,nowrit)
Zn fhclnterest of N.JR, (Dallas 05-99-00198XV UNPUBLISHED) .
In BcZnreresr of J.MI, (Waco- lo-99-276~CV 12/l/99) UNPUBLISHED
In theInterest of TV, 8 S.W.3d 448 (lex.App.-Waco 1999, no wit)
MlZianw y. TDPRS, (Houston 14”’ 14-98-007OOCV UNPUBLISHED)
Green v. TDPRS, 25 S.W.3d 213 (Tex.App.-El Paso, 2000)
Ihiminski v. Adoption Access, (Dallas 99-00085 CV l/28/00 UNPUBLISHED)
In fhclnterest ofA.I(, 16 S.W.3rd 387 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, no wit)
42
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
&!pj
Jsz
p3J
189
B!?
191
192
193
pJ 195
pJj
Doyle y. IDPm, 16 S.W 3rd 390 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000)
In reM.LZ?J., 16 S.W.3d 45 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2000)
In the Znteresf of M. NT. (San Antonio 04-98-00754-W)
In theZnterest ofD.EG., (Houston Ol-99-00143~CV UlOlOOO)
KUq v. Solomon, 16 S.W.3rd 106 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2000, no writ)
In theInterest of C.H., 25 S.W.3rd 38 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, wit granted)
In thelnterest ofAmber King, 15 S.W.3d 272 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2000, wit denied)
Zuniga v. Zuniga, 13 S.W.3d 798 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999, no wit)
tila v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3rd 750 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, tit denied)
In the Interest ofD.S., 19 S.W.3rd 525 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth 2000, no wit)
In re: CAM., (Beaumont -No. 09-98-098~CV - 4/20/00)
Troxel v. Granvilk, 120 S.Ct. 2054,200O WL 7172807 (U.S.Wash.)
Bartell v. Lohiser, (6th Cir. 2000 Fed App. 0 194P (6th Cir) 6/7/00)
In Re Ruiz, 16 S.W.3rd 92 1 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no wit)
Doty -Jobbar v. DCCPS, 19 S.W.3rd 870 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2000, writ denied)
In fhc interest of M. r:, 2 1 S.W.3rd 925 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no wit)
In theinteresf of GC, 22 S.W.3rd 932 (Tex. 2000)
In the interesf 0fK.C Jr. andJ.M.C, 23 S.W.3rd 604 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, no wit)
Leaf v. TDPRS, 25 S.W.3rd 315 (Tcx.App.-Austin 2000, no wit)
Phillips andlopez v. TDPRS, 25 S.W.3rd 348 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, no writ)
In thrlntercst of Stevenson, 27 S.W.3rd 195 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no wit)
Zn theinferestofMJM.L, 31 S.W.3rd 347 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, notit)
Zn theintmestofJ.M.CA., 31 S.W.3rd 692 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no tit)
In the infer.& of S.F., 32 S.W.3rd 3 18 (Tcx.App.-San Antonio, 2000, no writ) In the interest of TM., 33 S.W.3rd 341 (Tex.App.-Amarillo, 2000, no wit)
In the interest of D. 2,34 S.W.3rd 625 (Tcx.App.-Ft. Worth, 200, no wit 0)
43
In the Interest of M.A.M., 35 S.W.3rd 788 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2001, no wit)
In the interest of TI: & K. Z, 39 S.W.3rd 355 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 1st Dist.] 2000, no wit)
tidowri x Ensep, 2001 WL. 123766 (Amarillo 07-00-0123~CV 2/14/01)
In fhe inkrest of J.H., 39 S.W.3rd 688 (Tex.App.-Houston [lst Dist.] 2000, no writ)
In the it&rest of VR M, 41 S.W.3rd 183 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 2000) see writ hisrory cite 42 S. K3d 544
In the in&rest of Cobollcro, 2001 WL 252096 (Amarillo 07-00-0278~CV, 04/16/01)
TDPZLVv. Sherry,2001WL421219(Tex.)
In the interest of K.M.S., 2001 WL 493437 (Tcx.App.-Dallas)
In theinter& of.KEC, 201 WL 533218 (Tex.App.-Waco)
Waddell v. TDPRS, 2001 WL 533807 (Tex.App.-Dallas)
In theinferestof&LD. ondRRD., 2001 WL 551165 (Tex.App.-Waco)
In theinterest of&L, 2001 WL 578314 (Tex.App.-Houston [14tb Dist.])
TDPZ7.S v. Perry., 2001 WL. 627586 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14th Dist,])
_- 44
![[Pelletier S.W.] Alkaloids Chemical and org](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5536165f4a7959361a8b4854/pelletier-sw-alkaloids-chemical-and-org.jpg)
