in the Interest of E.J.R., a Child
503 S.W.3d 536
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Mother (N.L.C.) sought to terminate father J.J.I.’s parental rights after he executed a January 14, 2016 "Father’s Affidavit for Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights" stating relinquishment was irrevocable after 11 days; she filed the termination petition January 25, 2016.
- Prior facts: paternity was adjudicated in 2014; mother was managing conservator and father possessory conservator with a graduated supervised visitation schedule.
- At the May 2, 2016 hearing father appeared pro se, testified he did not want to relinquish rights, and said he signed the affidavit reluctantly because visitation was made difficult; he presented testimony and photos of his involvement and that he had paid child support after adjudication.
- Trial court denied the termination petition and made findings that father loved the child, was deprived of court-ordered visitation, signed the affidavit out of frustration, and that it was in the child’s best interest to keep the father in the child’s life.
- Mother appealed arguing (1) the court improperly disregarded or “set aside” the irrevocable affidavit, (2) the affidavit alone conclusively established best interest, (3) the court erred in its application of Holley factors, and (4) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to deny termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by "setting aside" an irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment | The affidavit met Fam. Code §161.103 formalities; court could not ignore it and must treat it as controlling evidence toward termination | Trial court did not set aside or revoke the affidavit; it considered affidavit but weighed testimony and facts about best interest | Court: No error; the court did not set aside the affidavit and was permitted to weigh evidence on best interest |
| Whether an unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment conclusively proves termination is in the child’s best interest | Affidavit alone is clear & convincing proof of best interest and compels termination | Affidavit is relevant and may be sufficient evidence but is not ipso facto conclusive; best-interest inquiry remains required | Court: Affidavit is evidence but not conclusive; petitioner still must prove best interest by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether the trial court was required to expressly apply Holley factors when deciding best interest | Trial court must consider Holley factors expressly; failure to do so is reversible error | Holley factors are non‑exhaustive and permissive; courts may but need not separately recite them when sufficient evidence exists | Court: No reversible error; Holley factors are permissive and not mandatory in this context |
| Whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support denial of termination | Mother: affidavit plus her testimony showed father did not merit continued parental rights; burden shifted to father to disprove best interest | Father: testified he loved child, improved support, tried to visit, and presented photos; credibility resolved by trial court | Court: Evidence was sufficient to support trial court’s findings; mother did not meet clear and convincing burden to prove termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. McLennan Cnty. Children’s Protective Servs., 627 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1982) (affidavit of relinquishment may be sufficient evidence for best-interest finding)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (both statutory grounds and best-interest must be proved for termination)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (strong presumption favoring preservation of parent‑child relationship)
- Terrell v. Chambers, 630 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1982) (irrevocability prevents parent from withdrawing affidavit as a ground for termination)