Articles Posted in Parental Rights

Family law practice in Texas involves complex procedures and intricate legal maneuvers, which often define the process of filing an appeal. A recent judicial opinion involving a Texas family law case where a father sought to appeal the termination of his parental rights demonstrates the intricacies and potential pitfalls of the appeal process and serves as a reminder of the importance of retaining counsel with a sufficient understanding of the law’s nuances when fighting for parental rights.

According to the facts discussed in the recent judicial opinion, a father was faced with losing his parental rights to his two children after he was found unfit during a bench trial. The trial court ultimately ordered the termination of both the father’s and the mother’s rights, citing several legal grounds under the Family Code. The parents’ world turned upside down, and they decided to appeal this life-altering decision.

Texas law allows parties to appeal to one of two different courts of appeals, and this choice can have significant implications for the case. This decision requires careful consideration and could ultimately impact the fate of the appeal. In this particular case, the father initially noticed his appeal to one court of appeals, while the mother chose the other. However, as the parties recognized the need for consolidation of their appeals from the same trial court order, a jurisdictional dispute arose. This situation necessitated a subsequent amendment to the notice of appeal to reflect the mother’s chosen appellate court.

Navigating the intricate landscape of family law proceedings is no easy task, and when parental rights are on the line, the stakes are incredibly high. A parent’s rights to parent their child are seen as fundamental under both the federal and Texas state constitutions A recent judicial published by the Texas Court of Appeals sheds light on the challenges parents can face in cases seeking the termination of parental rights.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services embarked on a legal journey to terminate the parental rights of N.R. (Father) and E.R. (Mother) concerning their two-year-old child. The case eventually made its way to court, leading to a judgment that would significantly impact the lives of those involved. N.R. (Father) appealed this judgment, resulting in the appellate proceeding.

The heart of Father’s appeal rested on the contention that the associate judge overseeing the trial had erred by proceeding with the trial on the merits, despite Father’s objection to the case referral. The legal landscape, as outlined by the Texas Family Code, permits judges to refer certain matters, including parent-child relationship suits, to associate judges for trial. However, this referral is not without its constraints. If a party raises a timely objection to the associate judge hearing the trial on the merits, the judge must then preside over the trial themselves.

Texas child abuse and neglect cases often require that a child be placed in the temporary custody of another person besides the parent during the pendency of the proceeding. This may be necessary because serious allegations of abuse or neglect can warrant an urgent change in custody to protect a child from harm. Texas law works with a presumption that a child is best suited to be placed in the custody of a blood relative, especially if the child has a preexisting relationship with the relative.

In instances where parental rights are terminated after a judicial proceeding, the child will be placed in the permanent custody of another party besides the parent at issue. Courts often choose to make whatever temporary arrangement permanent after termination so long as the temporary custodian is interested in obtaining full custody of the child. A recent Texas appellate decision demonstrates the difficulty blood relatives may have in gaining custody of a child when the child was initially placed in the temporary custody of another person.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the child at issue was removed from the custody of his mother after he was hospitalized as unresponsive and tested positive for PCP, a powerful and illegal sedative drug. The child was received at the hospital, and a welfare proceeding was initiated on his behalf. During the proceeding, the child was placed in the care of a foster family, although later, a maternal aunt of the child was also interested in taking care of him as the aunt also had custody of the child’s younger brother.

It has been said that the termination of a natural parent’s parental rights is akin to “the death penalty” of child welfare cases. When the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services makes the decision that it is in a child’s best interest to terminate the rights of a natural parent, the proceedings are often taken as a last resort. Because the rights involved are so important and fundamental, the DFPS must follow strict procedural guidelines when pursuing a termination case. The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed a natural father’s appeal from a ruling terminating his parental rights.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the Texas DFPS had sought to terminate a man’s parental rights over his son. The man and the child’s mother were married in 2016 and the child was born in 2017. The mother had a history of drug problems and appeared to expose the child to drugs before and after her pregnancy. In a different proceeding, the mother’s parental rights were terminated for her failure to abide by a safety plan enacted by the DFPS.

In the instant case, the DFPS alleged that the man did not have a safe home for his son to live in with him. Additionally, the DFPS was concerned about the man’s continued contact with the child’s mother, and his minimization of her drug and behavioral issues. The father proposed that he and his son could move in with a family member, however, the plans were not guaranteed, and the DFPS continued to pursue termination proceedings. At trial, a jury found that terminating the father’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child, in part because the father knowingly allowed the child to be endangered by the mother’s drug abuse.

The State of Texas has an interest in the welfare of children living in the state. When there are accusations that a child is being abused or neglected, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) may get involved to protect endangered children. If a Department investigation finds that a child is at risk of abuse or neglect, custody of the child may be taken from the parent or parents and placed in the temporary custody of a relative or other responsible adult.

When child welfare proceedings are initiated by the Department, parents are given a safety plan outlining what needs to be done to safely return the child to their custody. If a parent substantially and repeatedly fails to uphold their end of a Department service plan, the Department may seek to terminate that parent’s parental rights, paving the way for the child to be adopted by another family that can safely care for them. The Texas Supreme Court recently addressed a Texas Court of Appeals decision that had ordered a new trial after a man’s parental rights had been terminated.

The parent in the recently decided case was brought to the attention of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services when an anonymous source reported that he and the child’s mother had hurt the child. An agent from the Department visited the parents’ home and noted that the child was bruised. Later, test results showed that the child had a measurable amount of cocaine and methamphetamine in her system. As a result of this, an emergency custody order was made and the child was placed in the care of a relative. In order to regain custody of the child, the father was placed on a safety plan that required him to submit to drug and alcohol testing and seek psychological care. Because the father failed to meet the requirements of the service plan, the Department initiated termination proceedings.