in Re the Dallas Group of America, Inc. and Action Personnel, Inc.
434 S.W.3d 647
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Virgel James Stoker died in a workplace accident; two minor children (A.S. and K.D.S.) were alleged wrongful-death beneficiaries. Stoker had executed written acknowledgments/admissions of paternity for both children and child-support orders were entered before his death.
- A.S.: birth July 2010; Stoker and mother signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity; a family court entered an agreed child-support order finding the parent–child relationship established.
- K.D.S.: birth October 2011; Stoker and mother signed an Admission of Paternity and Waiver of Genetic Testing; a family court entered an order establishing child-support and access.
- Relators (defendants in wrongful-death suit) sought to compel genetic testing of A.S. and K.D.S. in discovery to challenge the children’s standing as wrongful-death beneficiaries, citing evidence Stoker had expressed doubts about paternity.
- The probate court denied the relators’ motions to compel genetic testing; relators petitioned this court for mandamus relief to overturn that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants may compel genetic testing of alleged beneficiaries in wrongful-death suit | Genetic tests are relevant because biological paternity is required for standing under the Wrongful Death Act; testing can show the children are not beneficiaries | The children’s paternity had been legally established by acknowledgments and family-court orders before Stoker’s death; third-party defendants lack standing to relitigate paternity via discovery | Denied — court held no good cause to compel testing where paternity was previously adjudicated/acknowledged and unchallenged by authorized parties |
| Whether Brown/Garza require reopening family-code acknowledgments in wrongful-death litigation | Relators: Supreme Court wrongful-death cases permit proof of biological relationship and do not foreclose testing | Respondents: Brown/Garza addressed situations without prior adjudication; here paternity was already established under Family Code, so those cases are inapposite | Held that Brown and Garza apply to unsettled paternity situations; they do not require reopening an already-adjudicated parent–child relationship |
| Whether relators have standing under Family Code to petition for paternity adjudication posthumously | Relators contended they could seek adjudication under applicable Family Code provisions | Court: Family Code limits who may challenge acknowledgments and who may seek testing; relators are not among enumerated persons and no parent challenged paternity | Held relators lack standing under Family Code to force posthumous genetic testing |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to overturn trial court discovery ruling | Relators sought mandamus asserting trial court abused discretion | Court: mandamus appropriate only for clear legal error or lack of adequate appellate remedy; here the trial court correctly applied law | Denied mandamus because trial court properly denied testing request |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Edwards Transfer Co., 764 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. 1988) (adult illegitimate children are "filial descendants" and must prove paternity by clear and convincing evidence for wrongful-death standing)
- Garza v. Maverick Mkt., Inc., 768 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. 1989) (Wrongful Death Act need not incorporate Family Code legitimation procedures where legal paternity is not already established)
- Transp. Ins. Co. v. Faircloth, 898 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1995) (only biological or legally-adopted children have standing under Wrongful Death Act)
- In re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2010) (mandamus standard: available for trial-court abuse of discretion with inadequate appellate remedy)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (trial court has no discretion in resolving questions of law; mandamus may issue for legal error)