in the Interest of Baby Girl S., a Child
407 S.W.3d 904
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- J.C. is the biological father of Baby Girl S.; A.S. relinquished rights and an agency pursued termination of J.C.'s rights.
- The Texas Paternity Registry allows an alleged father to register to obtain notice of adoption/termination proceedings.
- Baby Girl S. was born March 5, 2010; petition to terminate rights filed seven days after birth; J.C. did not register.
- Adoption finalized; J.C. learned of birth months later and filed a bill of review more than four months after learning.
- Trial court granted summary judgments for Generations Adoptions and adoptive parents; denied J.C.'s bill of review.
- Issue presented: whether §161.002, as applied, violates due process or due course of law when a known but non-registered father is affected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice under §161.002(b)(3) without registry participation | J.C. argues unregistered status violated due process. | Generations Adoptions contends registry not required if no registration. | Statute allows termination without notice; registry not required for unregistered father. |
| Right to develop a protected relationship when notice is lacking | J.C. asserts lack of notice prevented meaningful relationship; due process requires notice. | Registry safeguards suffice; Lehr framework not violated here. | Statutory framework sufficiently protects interests; no due process violation under these facts. |
| Strict compliance with §161.002(e) certificate requirement | Decree failed to show search certificate as required. | Certificate of Paternity Registry Search was in record and decree referenced no-registrant finding. | Record satisfied §161.002(e); declaration complies with statute. |
| Constitutional claim under Texas due course of law | Texas Constitution provides broader protections for apparent fathers; denial of notice harms due course. | Texas due course analysis does not extend greater protection under these facts; registry mechanics suffice. | Texas due course of law protections do not render the statute unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (putative father registry adequacy; autonomy of notice depends on registry control)
- In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) (Texas due course of law for biological fathers; standing when early commitment and efforts shown)
- In re K.M.S., 68 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (service requirements for known putative father; limitations differ from termination context)
- In re Adoption of A.A.T., 196 P.3d 1180 (Kan. 2008) (developed relationship and timely action are key to notice in newborn adoptions)
- Baby Boy W., 988 P.2d 1270 (Okla. 1999) (mother/adoption actions can deprive father of opportunity to grasp parental rights)
- Baby Boy Doe, 717 P.2d 686 (Utah 1986) (fraudulent conduct by mother; timely action by father affects due process and notice)