in the Interest of J.A.C. and Z.C.C.
05-15-00554-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2015Background
- Appeal from a Collin County district-court proceeding concerning parentage of J.A.C. and Z.C.C.; appellants are the children challenging plea to the jurisdiction.
- Appellee (Massey) contends prior acknowledgments of paternity (allegedly including signed birth certificates, a 2008 notarized settlement, and South Carolina/Georgia divorce decrees) bar the children’s suit under Tex. Fam. Code §160.308(c).
- Appellants (the children) argue the record lacks admissible evidence that any valid statutory acknowledgment of paternity was executed by Cramer under Texas or other states’ law.
- Appellants object to use of an unadmitted deposition (RR Ex. 3) and other unsubstantiated factual assertions in Appellee’s brief and the reporter’s record.
- Appellants invoke Texas Family Code provisions (notably §§160.302, 160.308, 160.311, 160.602, 160.637) and argue Texas law governs parentage determinations regardless of child’s birthplace or residence per §160.103.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Massey) | Defendant's Argument (Children/Appellants) | Held (Appellants' position/request) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ suit is an impermissible collateral attack on an acknowledgment of paternity under §160.308(c) | At least one valid acknowledgment exists (birth certificates, settlement, divorce decrees), so suit is barred | No admissible evidence shows any document satisfies statutory acknowledgment requirements under Texas or other states; no judicial notice or proof of foreign-law compliance was offered | Appellants urge reversal: trial court lacked basis to find an effective acknowledgment; children may proceed to adjudicate parentage |
| Whether alleged birth certificates/admissions by Cramer operate as effective acknowledgments under §160.302/§160.311 | Birth certificates and prior statements establish Cramer’s paternity | Birth certificates are not in record (or not properly admitted); even if present, no evidence that they meet South Carolina/Georgia statutory requirements and no foreign-law proof or judicial notice was taken | Appellants argue the trial court should not treat those items as effective acknowledgments without proper evidence; suit should survive jurisdictional challenge |
| Whether trial court may consider an offered but unadmitted deposition/exhibit | Massey relies on RR Ex. 3 deposition testimony to prove acknowledgments and admissions | Appellants object: RR Ex. 3 was only offered, not admitted; Travelers Indem. precedent requires affirming acts (publication, reliance by court) to treat an offered exhibit as admitted, which did not occur | Appellants assert the deposition should not be considered on appeal; factual assertions based on it are unsupported |
| Whether public-policy or Chapter 160 construction bars the suit despite lack of statutory acknowledgment | Massey urges public-policy reasons to foreclose suit | Appellants cite §160.103 and portions of Chapter 160, arguing Texas law governs parentage determinations and the statutory scheme allows the children’s action | Appellants contend public-policy argument cannot override Chapter 160’s plain language; they request reversal and chance to prove Massey is the biological father |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbia Med. Center of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue, 271 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2008) (statutory interpretation: avoid rendering provisions meaningless or superfluous)
- State of Texas v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (court’s objective is to ascertain and give effect to Legislature’s intent)
- Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island v. Starkey, 157 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (an exhibit merely offered but treated and relied on at trial may be considered admitted for practical purposes)