law-termination of parental rights | statement of points for appeal from order terminating parent-child relationship | 15-
day deadline to file statement of points to preserve error for appellate review | constitutionality of Texas Family Code
provisions governing appeals in termination-of-parental-rights cases undecided (petition granted and pending) | family
law decisions |
INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION (of parental rights)
A trial court may involuntarily terminate the parent-child relationship if it finds by clear and convincing
evidence that: (1) the parent has committed at least one of the grounds for involuntary termination
enumerated in section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code; and (2) termination is in the best interest
of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001 (West Supp. 2010); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex.
2005). Although the two elements must be proven independently, “the same evidence may be
probative of both issues.” In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002).
Proceedings to terminate a parent-child relationship under the Family Code require proof by clear and
convincing evidence. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(1); In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 344 (Tex.
2009).
Clear and convincing evidence is defined as “the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the
mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be
established.” In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 264 (Tex. 2002).
RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
IN TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS APPEALS
In Interest of CHC, No. 09-0480 (Tex. Jan 28, 2011)(per curiam)(procedure for obtaining free record
based on indigency)
When a pro se party seeks to appeal a trial court’s decision and properly files a sufficient and unchallenged affidavit
establishing indigency and requesting a free record on appeal, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure mandate that the
party be provided the record. Because the affidavit in this case was not timely challenged, we reverse the court of
appeals’ dismissal of this appeal and remand the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings.
Because Hawkins established her indigence demonstrating her inability to pay costs on appeal, Hawkins was entitled to
proceed with the appeal without costs. The court of appeals erred in dismissing her appeal for Hawkins’ failure to pay
the docketing fee and provide a record. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we reverse the
court of appeals’ judgment and remand to the court of appeals with instructions to accept Hawkins’ appeal without
payment of the filing fee, order the preparation of Hawkins’ record at no cost, and consider the appeal on its merits.
IN THE INTEREST OF C.H.C., A CHILD; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-09-00121-CV, ___SW3d ___, 07-28-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral
argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Per Curiam Opinion [9-page opinion in pdf]
View Electronic Briefs 09-0480 IN THE INTEREST OF C.H.C., A CHILD
In re JHG, No. 09-0531 (Tex. Jan. 22, 2010) (termination of parental rights appeal, statement of points)
IN RE J.H.G.; from Collin County; 5th district (05-08-00875-CV, 290 SW3d 400, 05-14-09)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Per Curiam Opinion
View Electronic Briefs
In Interest of JOA, No. 08-0379 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Medina)(termination of parental rights appeal,
constitutionality of statement of points requirement for appeal)
IN THE INTEREST OF J.O.A., T.J.A.M., T.J.M., AND C.T.M., CHILDREN; from Collingsworth County; 7th
district (07-07-00042-CV, 262 SW3d 7, 02-25-08)
The Court modifies the court of appeals' judgment, affirms the judgment as modified, and remands the
case to the trial court.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
In Interest of MN, a Child, No. 07-0698 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Johnson)
(termination of parental rights, appellate procedure) (trial court's grant of extension of time to file
statement of points for appeal from order terminating parent's rights was proper)
IN THE INTEREST OF M.N., A CHILD; from Taylor County; 11th district
(11-06-00228-CV, 230 SW3d 248, 05-10-07)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without
hearing oral argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that
court.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht,
Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice Brister, Justice Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett delivered a dissenting opinion (would address constitutional issue avoided by majority)
In Interest of GB, No. 08-0380 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(per curiam)(opinion on denial of petition)
(termination of parental rights, ineffective assistance of counsel claim, failure to file statement of points)
IN THE INTEREST OF G.B., P.B., N.B., AND V.R., CHILDREN; from Washington County; 1st district
(01-07-00699-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-03-08)
Per Curiam OpinionIn denying the petition, we neither approve nor disapprove the holding of the court
of appeals regarding whether Texas Family Code section 263.405(i) prohibits an appellate court from
considering an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was raised for the first time on appeal.
In Interest of SKA, MA, and SA, No. 07-1045 (Tex. July 25, 2008)(per curiam denial)
(constitutionality of Texas Family Code section 263.4059(i) not decided)
IN THE INTEREST OF S.K.A., M.A. AND S.A., CHILDREN; from Gregg County; 6th district
(06-07-00003-CV, 236 SW3d 875, 10-17-07)
2 petitions
Per Curiam Opinion
In Interest of KW and MA, No. 08-0254 (Tex. July 25, 2008)(per curiam)
IN THE INTEREST OF K.W. & M.A., CHILDREN; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-06-00461-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-28-08)
Per Curiam Opinion
In Interest of DW, TW, and SG, No. 08-0258 (Tex. July 25, 2008)(per curiam)
IN THE INTEREST OF D.W., T.W. AND S.G., CHILDREN; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-06-00191-CV, 249 SW3d 625, 02-19-08)
Per Curiam Opinion
In Interest of JJ, No. 08-0299 (Tex. July 25, 2008)(per curiam)
IN THE INTEREST OF J.J., A CHILD; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-06-00333-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-06-08)
2 petitions
Per Curiam Opinion
In Interest of DF, No. 08-0378 (Tex. 25, 2008)(per curiam)
IN THE INTEREST OF D.F., A CHILD; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-07-00056-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-27-08)
Per Curiam Opinion
PETITION DENIED (IN APPEALS FROM THE COURTS OF APPEALS)
09-0712
IN THE INTEREST OF D.H., S.H. AND B.H., CHILDREN; from Taylor County; 11th district (11-08-00294-
CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-30-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(termination of parental rights, bench warrant)
The undisputed evidence showed that appellant's presently scheduled release date is March 13, 2030.
He admitted in his April 13, 2008 letter that he did not expect another parole hearing for two more
years. Although he raised the possibility of parole, the granting of such parole is so speculative that the
trial court would be justified in concluding that appellant's release was not probable in the near future.
Additionally, appellant's letters indicated that he had no ability to care for the children while he was
incarcerated, and he gave no indication that he had made arrangements for anyone to care for the
children while he was incarcerated.
09-0749
PHILL RAIJE RIAN v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES; from Williamson
County; 3rd district (03-08-00155-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-31-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009) as corrected
(termination of parental rights affirmed) (concurring opinion)
Phill Raije Rian appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her two children. She challenges
the admission of evidence concerning convictions that are on appeal and contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support the findings that her parental rights should be terminated and that termination is in
the children's best interest. She also contends that the Department should not be the children's sole
managing conservator. We affirm.
Because we have concluded that termination is supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence
pertaining to Rian's inability to care for her children for more than two years while imprisoned, we need
not consider other grounds for termination. Because we have concluded that termination is supported
by sufficient evidence, we need not evaluate Rian's alternative issue concerning the appointment of the
Department as managing conservator of the children.
08-0663
IN THE INTEREST OF J.M., L.M. AND K.M., CHILDREN; from Brazos County;
0th district (10‑08‑00108‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06‑11‑08)(appeal of judgment terminating parental rights)
09-0449
IN THE INTEREST OF T.D.S.T. AND C.T., CHILDREN; from Childress County;
7th district (07-08-00399-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-15-09, pet. denied July 2009)
as corrected (termination of parental rights affirmed)
08-0859
IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., D.S. AND L.A.S.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-07-00140-CV, 261
SW3d 76, 03-04-08)(termination of parental rights)
08-0583
IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., M.N.S.C., AND T.S., CHILDREN; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-07-00279-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-05-08, pet. denied Oct 2008, pet. denied Oct 2008)(termination
affirmed, statement of points)
08-0745
IN THE INTEREST OF K.M. AND J.O. MINOR CHILDREN; from Bexar County; 4th district
(04‑08‑00037‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07‑30‑08, pet. denied Oct 2008)(accelerated appeal concerning the
trial court’s termination of Kerry M.’s parental rights to her children, appellate points were determined to
be frivolous)
as redrafted
08-0478
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES v. ALEXANDER VALLEJO; from
Travis County; 3rd district (03-07-00003-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-18-08, pet denied Aug 2008)
(termination, frivolous appeal) petition for review, being treated as a petition for writ of mandamus,
denied
07-0728
IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.F., A CHILD; from Robertson County; 10th district
(10-07-00200-CV, 230 SW3d 263, 06-27-07)(termination of parental rights)
motion for expedited consideration dismissed as moot
motion to shorten rehearing deadline granted
09-0382 IN THE INTEREST OF L.K.H. A CHILD; from Kaufman County;
5th district (05-08-01191-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-06-09, pet. denied June 2009)
(termination of parental rights, untimely notice of appeal)
08-0088
IN THE INTEREST OF L.E.W., A CHILD; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-07-00162-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 12-13-07, pet. denied May 2008)(termination affirmed, physical
abuse, injury)
07-0882
IN THE INTEREST OF F.C.G., A CHILD; from Stephens County; 11th district
(11-07-00068-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 09-27-07) (termination of parental rights)
08-0206
IN THE INTEREST OF D.L.G., A CHILD; from Rockwall County; 5th district
(05-07-00787-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-17-07)
08-0332
ULYSSES SINAI LOPEZ v. MAX KUSHNER AND SARA KATHRYN KUSHNER; from Tom Green County;
3rd district (03-06-00779-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-13-08)(termination of parental rights based on
conviction)
07-0973
IN THE INTEREST OF J.F., J.J. AND J.J., CHILDREN; from Tarrant County; 2nd district
(02-07-00007-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-11-07, pet. denied Jan 2008)
(termination of parental rights, death penalty sanctions)
Also see:
Texas Causes of Action | 2011 Texas Supreme Court Opinions | 2011 Tex Sup Ct Per Curiams
Texas Caselaw Topics Pages | Texas Opinions homepage |