in the Interest of C.R.G., a Child
05-17-00717-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Child C.R.G. born Nov 16, 2015; mother E.A.G. filed a termination petition Feb 29, 2016 under Tex. Fam. Code §161.002(b)(3) alleging no presumed father and that an alleged father had not registered with the paternity registry.
- The petition included a DSHS certificate showing no notice of intent to claim paternity; Vargas (putative father) was not named or served.
- Trial court entered an order May 6, 2016 terminating the parent–child relationship as to “Unknown.”
- Vargas later learned of the termination, filed a SAPCR and then a motion for new trial and a verified bill of review alleging he is the biological father, that E.A.G. knew and intentionally concealed the proceeding, and that his serious 2015–16 medical injuries prevented timely action.
- Trial court granted appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the bill of review; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Vargas has standing to pursue a bill of review to raise a constitutional challenge to the statute as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring bill of review challenging constitutionality of §161.002(b)(3) as applied | Vargas: he is the biological father whose parental rights were terminated without notice; his rights were prejudiced and he can raise the constitutional claim by bill of review | E.A.G.: Vargas lacked standing because he was not a party to the termination suit and had not registered with the paternity registry; precedent (e.g., Lehr, Baby Girl S) supports dismissal | Court held Vargas has standing: he alleged a vested parental interest was terminated and lack of notice plus alleged concealment sufficed to confer standing to seek bill of review |
| Sufficiency of verification of bill of review | Vargas: verification was sufficient; any defect was not timely challenged | E.A.G.: verification was insufficient | Court held any challenge waived because E.A.G. failed to object below |
Key Cases Cited
- Waco Independent School District v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction is essential)
- Bland Independent School District v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standing is component of jurisdiction)
- Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to the jurisdiction standards)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental rights are constitutionally protected)
- Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983) (merits adjudication of putative father’s constitutional challenge)
- In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. 1994) (recognition of parental constitutional rights)
- In re Baby Girl S., 407 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (post-termination proceedings involving a putative father who had not registered)
- Katy Venture Ltd. v. Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. 2015) (bill of review may allege due-process violation for misleading a court about default/notice)
- Thrower v. Johnston, 775 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1989) (verification may be waived if not timely objected to)
- Harrill v. A.J.’s Wrecker Service, Inc., 27 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (accept factual allegations as true when plea does not introduce conflicting evidence)