408 S.W.3d 423
Tex. App.2013Background
- M.K.B. was born March 8, 2009 in Virginia; Moores initially agreed to relinquish rights for adoption by Donna and Alvin Brown.
- Moores executed irrevocable relinquishment affidavits March 10, 2009 designating Browns as managing conservators.
- Browns filed in Bell County, Texas a petition to terminate parental rights and adopt; district court granted termination and adoption.
- Moores did not appear at the termination hearing or timely perfect an appeal; they attempted later to challenge via bill of review and a “void” order attack.
- Virginia consent order (March 10) and Texas actions created parallel proceedings; Moores sought to invalidate both termination and adoption orders after the fact.
- Texas Family Code §161.211 governs attacks on termination orders based on relinquishments, with separate provisions for direct or collateral challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §161.211(a) bars the Moores' challenge as time-barred | Moores argue affidavits were void for timing, so §161.211 should not bar | Browns contend §161.211(a) bars direct/collateral attacks after six months | Barred by §161.211(a) six-month deadline |
| Whether the Virginia court had continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA make the Texas orders void | Moores claim UCCJEA divested Texas court and voided orders | UCCJEA issue not within §161.211(c) scope; Texas court valid | Ruled §161.211(c) does not permit jurisdiction challenge under UCCJEA; claim overruled |
| Fraud, duress, or coercion in execution of the relinquishment affidavits as basis to void orders | Moores contend fraud/duress voids affidavits and thus the orders | §161.211(c) limits to fraud/duress in execution; timing/formal requirements not open | §161.211(c) bars claims not limited to fraud/duress; first issue overruled or not sustained |
| Whether Moores can attack the termination order via voidness theory | Affidavits void; orders void; adoption collaterally affected | Finality provisions control; voidness exception narrow | Voidness theory not available; §161.211 controls; first three issues overruled; fourth not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Sims v. Adoption Alliance, 922 S.W.2d 213 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (validity of relinquishment affidavit relevant to termination challenge)
- Brown v. Texas Department of Protective Services, 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982) (voluntariness standards for relinquishment affidavits; ultimate defense by affidavit)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (bill of review standards; finality and relief mechanics)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (abuse of discretion in bill-of-review context; due process considerations)
- In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (due process considerations in timing/notice and §161.211 application)
- In re Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. 2012) (statutory construction; legislature aware of background law)
- Vela v. Marywood, 17 S.W.3d 750 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (burden on parent to prove voluntariness of relinquishment)
- Monroe v. Alternatives in Motion, 234 S.W.3d 56 (Tex. App.—Houston 2007) (burden-shifting for challenges to relinquishment)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (credibility and appellate deference to trial findings)
- S.C. v. Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 288 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (implied-facts rule when no findings)