in the Interest of A.H.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 10842
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Mother’s parental rights to four children were terminated by the trial court; three fathers’ rights were also terminated but are not at issue on appeal.
- Shortly before the termination hearing the mother executed an "Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights" for all four children.
- Mother was absent when trial began, appeared after both parties rested, told counsel she had signed the affidavit while "upset," had changed her mind, and wanted to revoke the affidavit; the court did not allow her to testify or reopen evidence.
- Mother did not allege fraud, duress, or coercion in executing the affidavit and did not file a motion for new trial asserting such grounds.
- The Department relied on the affidavit to prove statutory ground (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(K)); the only testimony on best interest was a caseworker’s conclusory statement that adoption by current caregivers served the children’s needs.
- The court concluded the affidavit was valid and supported termination under subsection (1)(K), but the evidence was legally insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest (subsection (2)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of voluntary relinquishment under §161.001(1)(K) and §161.103 form requirements | Affidavit defective: omitted parents’ counties and misidentified child names; statutes should be strictly construed in mother’s favor | Affidavit was voluntary, no claim of duress/fraud; Department willing to accept relinquishment as sole ground | Court: Affidavit valid and supported termination under (1)(K) by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether mother could attack termination beyond fraud/duress after signing affidavit | Mother contended form defects and changed her mind warranted reversal | State argued challenge limited because no allegation of coercion; affidavit controls | Court: Collateral attack limited to fraud/duress; none shown, so affidavit stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in children’s best interest under §161.001(2) | Mother argued trial evidence was insufficient; only conclusory caseworker testimony presented | State: Evidence limited but uncontradicted; mother offered no proof termination not in best interest | Court: Evidence legally insufficient — caseworker’s conclusory testimony did not meet clear-and-convincing standard |
| Remedy after insufficient best-interest proof | Mother asked reversal of her termination and rendition in her favor | State sought to uphold termination and conservatorship award | Court: Reversed portion terminating mother’s rights and rendered judgment denying Department’s petition as to mother; affirmed remainder (fathers’ terminations and Department’s conservatorship) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (both statutory ground and best-interest elements required by clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping child with parent is in child’s best interest; stability of placement relevant)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (termination proceedings must be strictly scrutinized)
- Neal v. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs., 814 S.W.2d 216 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991) (attack on termination based on unrevoked affidavit limited to fraud, duress, coercion)
- In re M.A.W., 31 S.W.3d 372 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000) (changing one’s mind after voluntary affidavit is not involuntary execution)
- In re W.C., 98 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (parental misconduct alone may not suffice to show termination is in child’s best interest)
- Wiley v. Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. 1976) (both statutory elements must be proved; best-interest proof not excused by finding of statutory ground)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (if evidence legally insufficient, rendition for parent is generally required)
- In re J.A.J., 243 S.W.3d 611 (Tex. 2007) (reversal of termination does not automatically disturb conservatorship appointment)