in the Interest of J.C., a Child
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7386
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- J.C. was born premature on 4 September 2010 and removed from her parents to be under the Department’s care.
- J.C. remained hospitalized for about two months after birth and was later placed with her foster parents on 1 November 2010, where she has remained.
- Parental rights of J.C.’s birth parents were terminated; both foster parents and paternal grandparents filed separate petitions to adopt J.C., which were consolidated.
- The foster parents moved to dismiss the grandparents’ adoption suit for lack of standing under Tex. Fam. Code § 102.005.
- The trial court found the grandparents failed to meet 102.005(5) (substantial past contact) but had standing under § 102.006(c); the court denied the motion to dismiss, prompting an interlocutory appeal.
- The appellate court reversed, holding § 102.006(c) does not independently confer standing; the suit must be grounded in § 102.005 standing, and since the grandparents did not meet § 102.005, their petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 102.006(c) can confer standing independent of 102.005 | Foster Parents: §102.005 governs standing; §102.006 does not confer standing. | Paternal Grandparents: §102.006(c) provides a broad exception that creates standing independent of §102.005. | No; §102.006(c) does not independently confer standing. |
| Whether the grandparents had standing under §102.005(5) (substantial past contact) | Foster Parents: grandparents failed to show substantial past contact. | Paternal Grandparents: visits and contact were limited by the Department, but enough to satisfy substantial past contact. | No; grandparents failed to prove §102.005(5) standing. |
| What is the proper disposition given the statutory framework when §102.005 is not satisfied? | Foster Parents: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is proper. | Paternal Grandparents: §102.006(c) might allow standing despite §102.005 deficiencies. | Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.G., 267 S.W.3d 120 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008) (statutory standing framework governs standing analysis)
- Jasek v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 523 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011) (standing must be alleged/established within statutory language)
- In re A.M., 312 S.W.3d 76 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2010) (102.005 details standing; 102.006 limits where parental rights terminated)
- In re C.M.C., 192 S.W.3d 866 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006) (102.006 limitations can bar relatives from filing unless exceptions apply)