In Re Jm, 352 S.W.3d 824

DFPS filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Steve and Magdalena and two other fathers regarding Magdalena's child J.M.
Trial court initially terminated Steve’s rights with respect to J.M. but did not terminate Magdalena’s rights or state statutory grounds or best-interest findings on the record.
Closing arguments revealed DFPS sought termination of Steve only if Magdalena’s rights were also terminated, with Steve potentially becoming a possessory conservator otherwise.
DFPS later sought and obtained a Final Order terminating Steve’s parental rights without articulating statutory grounds on the record, and without a specified best-interest finding for Steve.
Steve moved for a new trial; DFPS stated it did not oppose reinstatement if Magdalena’s rights were not terminated, acknowledging potential abandonment of the initial pleading.
On appeal, this court initially abated to address frivolous-point challenges, then remanded to determine the statutory grounds, ultimately concluding DFPS abandoned its petition to terminate Steve independent of Magdalena’s rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did DFPS abandon its pleading to terminate Steve?	Steve	DFPS	Yes; DFPS abandoned the pleading because termination was conditioned on Magdalena's rights being terminated.
Was termination proper without a specified statutory ground in the order?	Steve	DFPS	Not dispositive; court reverses for abandonment, making need for grounds moot on remand.

In re C.C.J., 244 S.W.3d 911 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (abandonment of pleading assessed de novo; stipulations can demonstrate abandonment)
In re Shaw, 966 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998) (stipulations can show abandonment; formal amendment not required)
Laredo Med. Group v. Jaimes, 227 S.W.3d 170 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2007) (stipulations are admissions evaluated by language and surrounding circumstances)
Shepherd v. Ledford, 962 S.W.2d 28 (Tex. 1998) (informs interpretation of stipulations and pleadings in context)