in the Interest of a Child
04-15-00119-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2015Background
- Child removed from biological mother's care shortly after birth; placed in foster care and then with the Robertses (child's aunt and uncle) by court order for about four months.
- After threats by the biological mother to the household, Mrs. Roberts asked the Department to remove the child; Department later placed the child with foster parents the Gomezes.
- Biological parents' rights were terminated and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) was appointed permanent managing conservator.
- Both the Robertses and the Gomezes sought to adopt the child; after bench trial the court granted adoption to the Gomezes and denied the Robertses.
- Robertses appealed, arguing (1) trial court erred in finding they failed to prove the Department lacked good cause to withhold consent, (2) trial court erred in finding the Department consented to the Gomezes’ petition, (3) trial court refused them opportunity to present evidence at the new-trial hearing, and (4) due process violation at the new-trial hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Robertses proved the Department lacked good-cause to withhold consent to their adoption | Robertses: Department had no good-faith reason; they only temporarily surrendered placement and intended to retain contact | Department: Had good-faith concerns about safety, permanency, and the Robertses’ willingness to protect child after threats by biological mother | Court: Affirmed – some evidence supported Department’s good-cause decision; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether Department consented to Gomezes’ adoption | Robertses: Trial court improperly found Department consented to Gomezes | Department: No timely objection made regarding Gomezes’ petition at trial; issue not preserved | Court: Not preserved for review; overruled Robertses’ claim |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying evidence at motion for new trial (newly-discovered evidence) | Robertses: Presented amended motion alleging conflicts and statutory noncompliance in social study; sought new evidence at hearing | Department: Alleged matters were known at trial and not newly discovered; hearing not required absent a fact question | Court: Denial proper – Robertses failed to identify newly-discovered evidence or meet Waffle House factors |
| Whether trial court violated due process by warning of sanctions at new-trial hearing | Robertses: Warning chilled their right to present evidence and was a due-process violation | Department: No contemporaneous constitutional objection made at trial; issue not preserved | Court: Constitutional complaint not preserved; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. McDowell, 143 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (factfinder credibility and weight of testimony)
- Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2010) (standards for newly-discovered evidence for new trial)
- Hensley v. Salinas, 583 S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1979) (trial court must hear evidence on motion for new trial when motion raises fact issues that, if true, entitle movant to new trial)
- Landis v. Landis, 307 S.W.3d 393 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009) (hearing on motion for new trial not mandatory absent fact question)
- Henning v. Henning, 889 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (constitutional complaints waived if not presented to trial court)