in the Interest of K.M.L., a Child
443 S.W.3d 101
| Tex. | 2014Background
- Parental termination case involving Melissa (an intellectually disabled, mentally ill mother) and John (indigent father) regarding K.M.L.; DFPS sought termination and appointment of DFPS as sole managing conservator.
- Melissa executed a June 4, 2010 affidavit of voluntary relinquishment; guardianship order later designated Angali as Melissa’s guardian, but the guardianship was issued after the affidavit.
- John was not appointed counsel and did not receive trial notice; he appeared only after a subpoena and without proper notice to hearings preceding trial.
- Jury terminated both parents’ rights based on multiple statutory grounds, including voluntary relinquishment for Melissa and endangerment/failure-to-follow-reunification for both.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court reverses as to Melissa on the relinquishment ground and as to John on notice issues, remanding for further review on remaining grounds.
- Court holds Melissa’s June 4 relinquishment affidavit was admissible; however, there is legally insufficient evidence that she knowingly and intelligently relinquished her rights; John’s lack of notice voids the trial judgment and requires new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the June 4 relinquishment affidavit | Melissa argues the affidavit is facially deficient and not verified. | DFPS contends affidavit was verified and admissible. | Affidavit deemed verified and admissible |
| Legal sufficiency of Melissa's voluntary relinquishment | DFPS contends Melissa knowingly and intelligently relinquished rights. | Melissa contends the relinquishment was not voluntary due to her disabilities and coerced context. | Record lacks clear and convincing evidence of knowing, intelligent relinquishment |
| Best interest of KM.L. and other grounds for termination | DFPS argues grounds under D, E, and O support termination; best interest supports termination. | Melissa/Angali argue insufficient evidence for grounds beyond relinquishment and best interests are not met. | Court remands for factual sufficiency review on D, E, and O; upholds best-interest finding |
| John's notice and due process rights | John asserts notice was provided by publication only and he did not waive rights by appearing. | DFPS argues waiver through appearance; also notes lack of proper notice impaired due process. | John did not receive proper trial notice; judgment void; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. 2012) (parental rights termination requires clear and convincing evidence)
- In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. 2003) (affidavits of relinquishment and voluntariness concerns)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental termination standard and due process)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; Holley factors applicability)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process in termination proceedings)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (indigent parents’ right to counsel; Mathews v. Eldridge framework)
- Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (due process restraints on notice in contested cases)