in the Interest of E.N.J., a Child
06-15-00019-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 13, 2015Background
- Child E.N.J. was taken into the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services’ (the Department) emergency possession shortly after birth and initially placed with foster parent K.F.B.
- The trial court later placed E.N.J. temporarily with Z.W., Angie’s great-aunt; K.F.B. remained in possession until a later order.
- K.F.B. filed a petition in intervention seeking possession and to be named temporary and permanent managing conservator; Z.W. also intervened seeking conservatorship.
- Edward and Angie (the parents) moved to strike K.F.B.’s petition in intervention; the trial court denied those motions and, after an eleven-day bench trial, terminated the parents’ rights and appointed K.F.B. managing conservator.
- Only Edward appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to strike K.F.B.’s intervention on the ground the trial court’s order lacked an affirmative finding of the intervenor’s substantial contact with the child.
- The Court of Appeals held Edward lacked standing to raise the issue because any injurious effect from appointing K.F.B. instead of Z.W. would be to the intervenor (Z.W.), not to Edward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying Edward’s motion to strike K.F.B.’s petition in intervention for lack of an affirmative finding of substantial contact | Edward: Order is deficient for not affirmatively finding intervenor had substantial contact, causing child to be placed with K.F.B. rather than Z.W. | Department & K.F.B.: Either there is implied evidence of substantial contact or no affirmative finding is required; Department also argued Edward lacks standing | Court: Edward lacks standing to complain because any injury from appointment of K.F.B. instead of Z.W. would affect Z.W., not Edward; point overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146 (Tex. 1982) (an appellant may not complain of errors that do not injuriously affect him)
- Jackson v. Fontaine’s Clinics, Inc., 499 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1973) (same standing principle cited in Buckholts)
- Tex. Workers’ Compensation Ins. Fund v. Mandlbauer, 988 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. 1999) (standing rule reiterated)
- In re D.C., 128 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (parent whose rights were terminated lacked standing to challenge another party’s parental-rights claim)