In the Interest of J.K.B. and Minor Children
439 S.W.3d 442
Tex. App.2014Background
- Roy sought termination of his parent-child relationship with twins J.K.B. and J.D.B. under Family Code §161.005(c) based on being adjudicated the father prior to genetic testing.
- The 2002 divorce judgment found Roy to be the twins’ parent and ordered child support; Roy later learned genetic testing excluded him as the biological father.
- Trial court ruled Roy was a presumed father, not adjudicated or acknowledged, and denied genetic testing and termination.
- Roy petitioned Dec. 28, 2011 under §161.005(c); Mona did not contest the petition.
- A pretrial hearing found Roy not to be an adjudicated father under §161.005(c); genetic testing was denied.
- Roy appeals arguing (1) he was adjudicated father, (2) prima facie case for testing, and (3) termination is in best interest; the appellate court agrees and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Roy adjudicated as the twins’ father for §161.005(c)? | Roy was adjudicated in the 2002 divorce proceeding. | Court treated Roy as presumed father, not adjudicated. | Roy adjudicated; trial court erred in denying testing and termination. |
| Did Roy establish a prima facie case for termination under §161.005(f)? | Uncontested petition plus post-divorce genetic test showing exclusion constitutes prima facie. | No prima facie showing remained after judge’s classification. | Yes; Roy’s petition and testing constitute prima facie case. |
| Is termination under §161.005(c) limited by best interests? | Best interest could support termination under §161.005(a)-(c). | Best interest not required if prima facie case established. | Best interest not a required consideration for §161.005(c); Roy entitled to testing and termination consistent with (h). |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreyer v. Greene, 871 S.W.2d 697 (Tex. 1993) (adjudication in divorce context supports termination authority)
- T.S.S. v. State ex rel. R.S.S., 61 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (paternity adjudication; collateral estoppel considerations)
- In re C.E., 391 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (prima facie testing standard under §161.005(f))
- In re A.L.J., 929 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996) (adjudication concepts in family-termination context)
- Espree v. Guillory, 753 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988) (state of paternity proceedings and termination context)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (statutory interpretation; intent of amendments)
- American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio, 370 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. 2012) (interpretation of statutory provisions; plain meaning rule)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (statutory interpretation and context governs meaning)