*1 case, purpose enterprise In that the est in the the was right rior of control. of lacking. See id. Court stressed no less than three times right equal. that to control was not today, In the case before Court See id. 718-19. The Court held Operations and Mainte- purpose of the Triplex that the owner of a bar had a streets and Agreement provide nance is to of greater right serving of control over the highways for the citizens Houston highly alcohol than the radio station that and Metro of this state. While the State publicized co-sponsored “Ladies spend providing millions of dollars that Night” at the bar. Id. service, they pecuniary have no interest in They purpose enterprise. of the do today, jury In case us has before in order to benefit provide the service State, decided that the which had the su- financially. They providing a core control, liable, perior right of was not but public ser- governmental function. Their Metro, right which had some of con- public from the service vice is no different one, equal negligent. trol but not an Shoemaker, which was that was at issue overlay joint liability venture does 12. patrol. a civil air Id. at not fit the facts of this ease. $ si; n n n
II a political Because Metro is subdivision joint of a Another element venture State, equal of the because there is not an pecuniary is absent in this case is a inter- control, right of and because the State has purpose est the common venture. pecuniary purpose no interest in the twenty-five years ago, this Court Over maintaining pubr providing, operating, requirements reassessed the for establish- highways, lie should not be vicar- State joint enterprise the common-law iously joint theory. venture liable under Shoemaker, tort context. See 513 S.W.2d Accordingly, dissent. at 10. We disavowed earlier decisions that joint enterprise had held that a could be merely by showing
established that there joint instrumentality ownership injury. in an id. property involved See
at 16-17. also disavowed earlier deci- liability there imposed
sions that had when in the common pecuniary
was no interest purpose. See id. The Court stressed ABRAMS, Petitioner, Laurence liability joint for a Shoemaker tort only henceforth arise venture would JONES, Respondent. Donald Paul 17. commercial situations. Id. at Provid- maintaining public ing, operating, and No. 99-0184. enterprise. highways is not a commercial of Texas. Supreme Court Shoemaker, owners of an aircraft two Argued Oct. 1999. passengers perished when along with two voluntary plane during crashed July Decided 11-12. mission. Id. at search and rescue although the two This Court held pur- joint had “a interest
owners equal right and an
poses enterprise of the control,” enough impute that was not negligence pilot-owner inter-
passenger-owner. pecuniary *2 and a
child’s need for effective treatment imposed and has lim- some parent’s right its on a of access to confi- According- dential records. ly, the court of we reverse *3 and render that Jones take nothing.
The child whose records are at issue is parents, Karissa Her Donald and Jones. Jones, Rosemary she was divorced when years parents about seven old. Both re- present con- married sometime before the troversy erupted, Rosemary and Jones Rosemary original In the now Droxler. decree, parents appointed Karissa’s were joint of her and managing conservators younger years her sister. Two after the divorce, her father initiated further proceedings managing to become the sole daughters. Litigation his conservator of for years. ensued two more Karissa’s ultimately agreed ents to a modification of order, original but both were joint managing retained as conservators. Dunn, Beck, Spencer M. Edward gave Dennis The modified decree Jones certain Houston, for Petitioner. psycholog- children’s of access his ical records. Brown,
Marshall Davis Patricia A. Bat- Lester, ton, Several after the modification Lynn Kuriger, Paul David S. months concluded, Houston, Rosemary proceedings were Respondent. for sought professional Droxler services opinion Abrams, delivered the Justice OWEN Dr. Laurence psychologist, Court, in which Chief Justice evidence Karissa. The uncontroverted PHILLIPS, ENOCH, Karissa, Justice Justice time eleven who this was HANKINSON, ABBOTT, old, Justice Justice signs years agitated was and showed O’NEILL, join. and Justice GONZALES time worry. At the sleeplessness case, had the trial Abrams court heard statutory presents This case issues fifty min- Karissa six times for about seen upon are called to deter- construction. We utes on each occasion. mine if either 153.072of the beginning At the of Abrams’s first or section 611.0045of the Health and Karissa, reluctant to sultation with she was Code allows a to demand explored that her talk to him. When Abrams access to detailed notes of his or her, told him that she a mental health reluctance with she child’s conversations with relate what when that is not was concerned that he would say Abrams parents. the mental she had to to her on behalf of the child when provide have to releasing responded that he would believes he could report information but that parents, would be harmful to the to her mental,' of what give general description or emotional them a specifics. all the discussed without Legislature health. The has balanced was that Jones any psychologist notes to other an under- and Karissa reached Abrams as Karis- replace Abrams might would choose standing about what would counselor, explained that and he thereafter and Abrams parents, not tell her sa’s rapport with her. could then de- psychologist able to establish a new Karissa’s best whether it was Karissa’s termine began seeing Shortly after Karissa to Jones. interest Abrams’s notes (Jones) Abrams, legal father and his another counselor did not seek Jones requested counsel met with Abrams and Abrams did release all of her records. that he release to treat Abrams continued notes to Jones. a verbal sum- gave and his counsel Jones until this suit was filed Karissa information, sharing with them mary of release his notes. compel Abrams to subject matter of his consulta- the basic as to whether Abrams record is silent related that with Karissa. Abrams tions *4 was treatment after this suit to continue him that new wife Karissa had told Jones’s resolved. (who nanny) had Karissa’s formerly was turned that when she said to Karissa Droxler, mother, Karissa’s entered twelve, would have to choose where she Abrams, appearance against in the suit that she she lived. Karissa told Abrams neither agreed with Abrams that and she more conflict
was afraid there would be of have access to his notes parent should of this court between her because hearing A with Karissa. conversations in a choice. Abrams described Karissa as trial court. Abrams was held before the when he first saw her over what “panic” protection and testified that a sense impending she believed to be her decision psychother- integral part is an closeness par- ensuing and an battle between her apy expectation and that without some Abrams also told Jones that Karissa ents. confidentiality, Karissa would not choosing had said that she leaned toward him. He said that Karissa opened up to father and that she was at live with her him about the had several discussions with unhappy living times with her mother be- confidentiality of their sessions. Abrams away mother from home cause her opinion in his the release testified that more than Karissa liked. notes of what parent either of his detailed After Abrams had related this informa- best inter- had said was not her Karissa Karissa, tion about his sessions with Jones est. told Abrams that no of the conversations in the trial court position Jones took had had oc- nature Abrams described unconditionally parent, that as a and or be- curred between Jones Karissa all of Abrams’s records entitled to see stepmother. At tween Karissa daughter. repre- He further regarding his Abrams, dialogue among point some the trial court that based his sented to Jones, attorney, Abrams ei- Jones’s with he was conversations or said agreed ther with Jones’s counsel object opinion that she did question from counsel response testified, of her records. Abrams release mother had taken Karissa to see Karissa’s however, asked him not that Karissa had get leg up on” Jones Abrams “to conversations, the details of their to reveal court. during the week before the hear- and that among days meeting after the few a note which ing, her mother delivered counsel, Abrams, Jones, Jones’s his again ask- had written to Abrams Karissa rec- again pressed counsel for Abrams’s confidentiality of that he maintain the ing to Abrams. Abrams ords in two letters their discussions. verbally wilting and in that re- responded what detailed notes about conver- Abrams’s leasing the detailed notes about his during profes- his had told him in her Karissa sations with Karissa would not be provid- with her were sional consultations interest. Abrams offered best court, however, ed to the trial court. The and educational records of the child.” Tex. 153.073(a)(2). stated on the record the conclusion of Jones contends Fam.Code hearing Family that it had not them that this section of the man- reviewed Code appointed and did not intend to. There is no indica- dates that a who is it tion that ever did so. all times all conservator has access at psychological records of child. We The trial court held that was enti- disagree. appealed, tled to Abrams’s notes. Abrams (Droxler) and Karissa’s mother filed brief- interpret We section 153.073 to ensure appeals support court of may grant that a court who is position. Abrams’s The court of divorced and who has been named a con- the trial court’s affirmed rights servator the same his or of access to justice dissenting. one at 377. S.W.2d psychological par- her child’s records as a review, granted petition Abrams’s ent who is not divorced. We do not inter- supported by which was Karissa’s mother. pret provi- section 153.073 to override the questions statutory chapter There are three sions of 611 of the Health and They Safety construction that we must decide. that specifically Code address whether section 153.073 of the health records of ents’ the mental gives a divorced legislative history their children. The *5 greater rights of access to mental health indicates that it was enact- section 153.073 un- parents general equalize rights nonmanaging- records than have ed to der 611 of the Health and chapter parents comparison Texas conservator to man- (2) Code, See House Safety section aging-conservator parents. whether 611.0045(b) Comm, Safety of the Health and Code Affairs, ANALYSIS, on Bill Judioial (1993) (ex- deny ac- professional parent Leg., allows Tex. H.B. 73d R.S. portions cess to of mental health if plaining provision records that this was needed to (1) professional that their re- remedy previous concludes limitations on non- (3) child, during lease would harm the and wheth- managing periods conservators a parent always acting possession, might er deemed to be when the child care, request- managing behalf of his or her child when fact that on required mental health records. to consult conservators were parent important with the other about de- health, edu- affecting cisions the child’s II welfare). cation, Legislature or The did above, question the first As indicated great- not intend in section 153.073to that we must resolve is whether section er to divorced than to Family 611 chapter 153.073 of Code We turn to ents who are not divorced. Safety governs the Health and Code Safety chapter 611 of the Health 153.073; § matter. Tex. Fam.Code Code. Safety §§ 611.001 to Tex. Health & Code that 611 chapter 611.008. We conclude the framework within which this
provides Ill case must be decided. that a Legislature The has determined or her own patient’s right of access to his Section 153.073 of mental health records is not absolute. parental rights upon addresses disso Code Safety marriage to one an Section 611.0045 of the Health and parents’ lution of the may deny says “professional It that a court that a provides other. unless Code otherwise, a record if the parent appoint any portion access to orders who is that release of right professional at all times the determines ed conservator “has pa- harmful to the portion ... order ... of would be specified by mental, medical, dental, or emotional psychological, access to tient’s
625 Safety so. See to do if it is reasonable phrase health.” Tex. Health & Code 611.0045(b). Martin, § 971 S.W.2d City Amarillo (Tex.1998); see also Tex. Gov’t however, are, and balances There checks 311.021(2) enacting (stating decision not to disclose Code professional’s on a entire statute, that the presumed record to a it is of a mental health portions effective). pro- another patient. select If the to be statute is intended treatment of the same fessional for for a had intended Legislature condition, professional de- related child’s men- aspects all of a newly access must allow the retained nying by simply proving records tal health copy the rec- to examine and parent, or she is indeed the to the that have not been released ords have needed to add would not Legislature 611.0045(e). newly re- patient. Id. acting patient’s phrase “who may then decide tained 611.0045(f). behalf’ pa- to release the records whether tient. the dissent agree provisions chapter 611 of There that, unfortunately, par court of spe- that deal the Health and acting always be deemed to be ents cannot cifically with the mental health records child’s behalf. See 983 S.W.2d 611.0045(f) provides a minor. Section (Edelman, J., dissenting). An obvious record shall the “content of a confidential sexually has example is when [parent] made available to a who is access a child and later demands molested acting on the behalf.” health treatment rec to the child’s mental 611.0045(f).1 a par- Jones contends that that the presume A court would not ords. necessarily acts on of his or her ent behalf behalf on the child’s seeking access to a child’s men- child when *6 Similarly, parents circumstances. such tal health records under section 611.0045(f). affect in a divorce or other suit embroiled appeals agreed. The court of “by requesting may It held that relationship parent/child the records, turn over Karissa’s mental health men seeking the motives of their own necessarily ‘acting Jones was on behalf may not records of the child tal health by contemplated Karissa section patient’s behalf.” acting [child’s] “on the 611.0045(f) of the Code.” 983 S.W.2d 611.0045(f). Safety § Health Code Tex. & that a mental therefore conclude pro required is not to professional health statute, construing a we must child’s confidential records every and vide access to a attempt effect to word 611.0045(a), (b), §§ portions of section 611.0045 1. The relevant Safety & Code Tex. Health are as follows: ©. 611.004(a)(4) provides in turn: Right § Rec- 611.0045. to Mental Health Section § ord of Con- 611.004. Authorized Disclosure (a) Except provided by as otherwise than in Judicial fidential Information Other section, patient a is entitled to have access Proceeding Administrative a confidential record made to the content of (a) professional may disclose confidential patient. about the only: information (b) professional may deny access professional any portion of a record if the (4) person who has the written to a portion release of that determines patient parent the patient, or a if sent of the patient’s physical, harmful to the would be minor, patient guardian if the has a or a is mental, health. or emotional manage incompetent to adjudicated as been personal patient’s the affairs. (f) record The content of a confidential 611.004(a)(4). §Id. person available to a listed shall be made 611.004(a)(4) acting who is Section patient’s behalf. 626 parent requests acting patient’s
if a who them is not a communications with mental- Zezulka, “on behalf of’ the child. professional.” Thapar health (Tex.1999). pur- 994 S.W.2d One IV pose confidentiality is to ensure that parent When a on behalf of his therapy they individuals receive when child, or her question Ramirez, then arises it. See R.K. v. 887 S.W.2d whether, 611.0045(b), (Tex.1994) under section (describing purposes professional may deny nevertheless access physician-patient privilege under the portion of a if their child’s records Evidence). Texas Rules of Although patient’s release would be harmful to the responsibilities respect to his mental, or emotional health. or her child necessitate access to informa- Safety 611.0045(b). § child, Tex. Health & Code tion about the absence of (b) only Jones contends that subsection confidentiality prevents communications applies when patient” “the seeks his or her a therapist patient between and the be- parent own records and not when a seeks patient cause the communi- fears such disagree. a child’s records. We detriment, cations be revealed to their purposes confidentiality neither the nor 611.0045(f) contemplates Section the needs of the are served. that when a seeks a child’s mental behalf,” health records “on the deny par If a does parent steps into the shoes of the part ent of a access 611.0045(f). (f) patient. Id. Subsection has recourse under third parties, including parent, affords no 611.0045(e). Tex. Health & greater rights patient. than of the those 611.0045(e). First, de 611.0045(f) This is evident when section nying access must allow examination entirety. applies considered in It its copying profes of the record another only parents, person but to “a who has parent acting sional selected patient.” the written consent of the Id. patient patient behalf treat 611.0045(f). 611.004(a)(4), §§ It would be for the or a related condition. same (f) unreasonable to construe subsection to Second, parent access to a child’s denied through allow a to obtain a third judicial id. records has recourse. See person pro that a record 611.005(a). We therefore conclude that *7 fessional has determined under subsection construing in the court of erred (b) if would be harmful released to the 611.0045(b) (f) of Health sections and the (b) patient. may Because subsection limit Safety totally and a giving parent Code as patient’s rights a to his or her own rec a mental health unfettered access to child’s (b) ords, subsection can limit a par also irrespective records of the child’s circum or third to a party’s right patient’s ent’s stances or the motivation. party records when the third turn to the facts of this case and the stands the stead. and sec- interplay between section 611.045 construing provi- a statute or code Safety and tion 611.005 of Health sion, consider, may among a court other Code, provides remedy a which (1) matters, object sought to be at- if a records have (2) statute, tained circumstances improperly been withheld. (3) enacted, under which the statute was (4) legislative history, consequences of a V (5) construction, particular and laws on above, per subjects. already indicated similar See As Tex. Gov’t Code recog- aggrieved professional’s who recently 311.023. This Court has son that, 611, to disclose confidential improper nized “failure through Chapter “[t]he may petition records” Legislature closely guard has chosen to communications or Abrams first conversations. When their Tex. appropriate court for relief. district 611.005(a). Karissa, him. not talk to she would saw Health & rapport establish a has “the He was unable to who denies access confidentiality. they denial was her until discussed of proving burden 611.005(b). it would take her “what Accordingly, asked Abrams proper.” talk,” at the explained proving get bore the burden Abrams to, she needed “it came down hearing denied properly that he proceedings these protection She needed protection.... about his conversations access to his notes said. knowing what she against anyone with Karissa. talk there was simply couldn’t She against ruled The trial what she parent would know chance either and the request did not Abrams. Abrams during made the decision said.” Abrams any findings not make trial court did with Karissa not the first session But or conclusions of law. because fact He parents. to either of her his notes part record is of the record reporter’s testified, able to “I had to order be sufficiency of the trial appeal, legal at that He told Karissa girl.” treat implied finding support court’s his notes that he would disclose session was that Abrams failed to judgment, which required to do so to her unless proof, may be chal meet his burden up to opened thereafter a court. Karissa jury find lenged in the same manner as hearing explained Abrams. Robinson, 768 ings. Roberson v. See psychotherapy integral part that an (Tex.1989). 280, 281 We must ex S.W.2d protection have a sense of that the record to determine amine the entire security drop and that she defensive a matter of whether Abrams established as continued to treat mechanisms. Abrams was proper law that his denial of access father he had denied her Karissa after (1) either because Abrams established notes, responded and she behalf, acting was not on Karissa’s Jones as- positively to treatment after Abrams harmful access to the notes would be conversa- that the details of her sured her to Karissa’s mental or emotional health. confidential. Treatment tions would be never indicated that he was until this suit was filed. None Jones continued or even seeking testimony the notes on behalf of as was contradicted Stmwder, distinguished challenged. Albright, from his own At the See Inc. behalf. (TexApp.-Houston [14 hearing, testified that his motivation 679 S.W.2d n.r.e.) (observing obtaining part Abrams’s notes was writ refd Dist.] testimony, even from the indication that Karissa’s mother had that “uncontroverted expert, on me in as an get leg up categorized hired Abrams “to a witness law if it is taken true as a matter of Although court.” this is some evidence clear, is free from positive, direct and acting that Jones was not on behalf inconsistencies, interest, contradictions, inaccura- Karissa but was his own *8 tending to cast sus- testimony that and circumstances it is not conclusive. Jones’s cies thereon”). in the testimony, picion he This “partially” motivated what evidence, custody contrary is sufficient his former wife’s absence perceived be law that release additional as a matter of tactics indicated that there were to establish would have been Karissa’s records. of Karissa’s records seeking reasons for conclusively not that harmful to her. prove Abrams did on behalf of Karissa. Jones was not opinion, that in his testimony Jones’s object not to the release acting on Karissa did But even if Jones were ques- a fact notes does not raise testified that Abrams’s behalf of would be their release opinion it would be harm tion of whether layper- Karissa was detailing harmful to her. ful to release his notes to her statute,3 eleven-year-old layperson. everyone son—an fined She include from qualified was not to make a determination physicians pretenders broad dis- —have of whether release of her records would be deny parents cretion to access to their mental, harmful to her emo- health children’s mental broader Safety tional health. See Tex. Health & judge discretion than even a district has 611.0045(b). The uncontradicted Code eager order disclosure. As as the Court evidence established as matter of law justification allowing has been to find for that Abrams’s denial of access to his de- an telling child to have abortion without tailed proper. notes was contrary to a trial parents, court’s view evidence, it come surprise will as no difficulty no keeping Court has trial in holding court erred parents ignorant of their children’s mental Jones was entitled the detailed notes records, contrary to the trial court’s daughter’s about his conversations with parental notification conclusion. As her mental health under the cases, responsibility the Court casts for its Accordingly, facts of this case. we reverse Legislature. decision this case on the judgment appeals of the court of steady parental But this erosion of author- nothing. render that Jones take ity judicial, legislative; not it results statutory from the view of lan- Court’s dissenting Justice HECHT filed a guage through prism presumed dimi- opinion. in parental authority. respectful- nution I ly dissent. BAKER dissenting Justice filed a opinion. go saying parents It should without generally information know BAKER, dissenting.
Justice
tained
their children’s health records
I
believe that the court of
ma-
order to make decisions for their well-
jority correctly
statutory
construed the
being.
any
To remove
doubt that this is
properly applied
scheme and
the law to the
divorce,
true,
any parent
even after
facts to reach the result it reached.
child,
responsibility
with custodial
for a
Accordingly,
respectfully
dissent from
153.073(a)(2)
of the Texas
the Court’s decision
this case.
“[ujnless
Code states that
limited
order,
appointed
a conservator
HECHT, dissenting.
Justice
right
of a child has at all times the
... of
construing
In this Term’s decisions
medical, dental, psychological,
”
Act,1
Parental Notification
the Court has
educational records of the child....
disturbing
regard
exhibited a
lack of
to this information is not
right
to raise and care for
matter and
insignificant
should
their children.2 This case continues
compelling
absent
reasons.
restricted
vein, holding
chapter
that under
Code,
Texas Health
Section 611.0045
Safety
Health and
men-
of the Texas
Code,
parts of
Safety
pertinent
care
as de-
professionals who,
tal health
—
611.001(2)
3. Tex. Health &
Fam.Code§§
1. Tex.
33.001-011.
(“
(A) person
'Professional' means:
autho-
practice
any state or
rized to
medicine in
1(I),
(Tex.2000);
In re Doe
Karissa was and showed if of tional health these records are re- worry sleeplessness; that Karissa re- leased? him open up promised
fused to to until he Yes, A sir. her that he would not reveal the details of Q you Judge can why And tell the their parents, conversations to her even you believe that? though judge might she understood that a A I’ve had no communications from disclosure; later order that Karissa then her to I be otherwise. asked her the last told him she that if was troubled when she her," it, time I saw June about she turned twelve in October she had to ex- reaffirmed her for it. received press a preference living with one note from her it asking last week (her other, stepmother ent or the as her again. nanny) former suggested might,7 had she added.) (Emphasis provoke it would hostility more between testimony, Court holds that parents; meeting her that after Kar- with persuade judge, which did not the district months, issa six times in five she seemed conclusively established that Karissa’s better; much that Karissa had reiterated by disclosing health would be harmed her confidentiality her desire for in their last only records to her father. The Court not 1996, meeting four months earlier June any meaningful denies the trial court role and in a note her had brought mother to credibility ev- determining weighing days him a few the October before idence, conclusion, it reaches a as a matter hearing; and that he had told Karissa’s law, of on evidence that inconclusive. father, Jones, that his former wife had Assuming testimony that Abrams’s estab- him “get leg up hired on” Jones in lished that Karissa’s health tvould continuing proceedings. their court On if February been harmed in 1996 he could specific disclosing issue whether promised not have her a measure of confi- Karissa’s records to Jones would harm dentiality because she would not have health, testimony Karissa’s Abrams’s its opened up to him and he could not have entirety is as follows: her, only counseled that dis- evidence Q your opinion Is it at this time that closure of the records would harm Karis- the release of those records would be sa’s health in when Abrams October physically emotionally or harmful her, longer seeing was no she Karissa? confidentiality. continued request Yes, sir. disputed whether Karissa still want- Q opinion? And what is that him, kept ed Abrams’s records from testi- her, A That would have harmed as a fying that based his conversations very matter of fact. It would be the daughter, opinion his she essence, better, it get would make her to wanted him have the records. The protection. testimony Court concludes Jones’s Q As we sit here on October 15th of no evidence that disclosure would eleven-year-old it harm your opinion is it still Karissa because harmful harm- qualified say would be to her or emo- is not what would be older, 153.134(a)(6) (“If years age may, a writ- is 10 the child Tex. Fam.Code Cf. court, agreement parents ten of the is not filed with writing man- filed with the choose the court, may render an order conservator, aging subject approval of appointing joint managing conser- court.”); 153.009(b) (“When the is- id. only appointment vators if the is in the best contested, managing conservatorship sue of child, considering following interest application party, of a the court shall age years ... if the factors: child is years age or older and interview a child 10 older, any, regard- preference, years under 10 interview child appointment managing joinl age.”). (“If the child servators id. 153.008 *11 qualifications, relative true, I of their regardless But if that is ful to her health. trump a dis- any professional is, yet let testimony that it then Abrams’s agree judge. confidentiali- trict request continued to Karissa disregarded. Karissa
ty must likewise be pa- to restrict determination The Court’s qualified say to disclosure is no more records de- to mental health rental access harm to father would of her records her of the statute not because spite and If not. than that it would her health by its conclusion demonstrated further on Kar- cannot be based opinion Abrams’s authorizes nondisclo- 611.0045 that section wishes, no basis at all. then it has issa’s the child’s health only .not when sure that disclosure why he believed Asked “act- is not parent but when be harmed health, an- harm Karissa’s would as provided behalf’ swered, from “I’ve had no communications (f) the statute. These words subsection her to be otherwise.” cannot, view, read to sensibly be my not think that Surely the Court does separate standard for create a confidentiality point for at one parent think that a might One records. precludes disclosure of information time by a standard stat- easily could meet such Nothing in the evidence before forever. request her for a child’s ing that his or see suggests us that Abrams would ever motivated out of love and records was birthday Her twelfth again. Karissa child, for the but Court concern anxi- days hearing, after the and her three are hos- that evidence cludes to any choices she would have eties about to enough by itself tile to one another to be re- point make at that were soon they selfishly an inference that support way or the other. No reason solved one motivated and therefore denying ac- gave that Abrams for Jones evidence the their child’s behalf. The daughter’s records remained cess to his especially in this case is points to Court judge valid. Had the trial found from this Abrams told Jones —Jones problematic. yet some might evidence that there suspicions merely have his did not —that nondisclosure, I could lingering need hired Karissa’s he believed he had been this Court’s deference to understand to Karissa order mother to counsel how this finding. But do not understand ongoing dis- leg up” “a the mother can conclude that no reasonable tri- Court Karissa custody over putes with Jones judge could find from this evidence al The Court is troubled and her sister. health would not be harmed Karissa’s frank admission the October Jones’s allowing her father access to her records. to him that Abrams’s statement hearing obtaining motivation for say, part to as the Court was of his It is no answer records, it could not to, though even a Karissa’s seems that section 611.0045 allows when he important to Jones to have been profession- to take a child other pre- to meet with Abrams until who will release the first went als one is found before True, ceding February simply Jones could have records. —which that he expressed had the view daughter to one or Abrams taken his by Karissa’s moth- being turn himself was used willing until he found one another any reason- imagine gives er. It is difficult over her and the statute ac- able, who would not candid way object. But the statute Abrams no motivation under guarantee knowledge a similar full-employment not a indeed, circumstances; might one and no professionals, mental health care inclined to believe shop a child as been less should be forced to To rest any motivation. rec- had denied such merely to obtain the child’s medical rec- justifi- access to a child’s I see no. denial of importantly, ords. More drawn from dis- merely on inferences section 611.0045 ords applying cation for another, parents conflicts between the trump putes one permit 153.073(a)(2) their under section Texas Code.
By construing section 611.0045 as estab-
lishing acting-on-behalf-of an standard for
gaining access to a child’s mental health into, requires the Court inquiry over,
and inevitable disputes
subjective motivations, instead of focusing objective harm-to-the-pa-
on the more
tient’s-health standard. do not read sec- require inquiry,
tion 611.0045 to such always
which will almost exacerbate diffi- parents.
culties between divorced appears
While Abrams to have been dealings
ties, suggest and the district court did not contrary, was not bound decision, Today’s
Abrams’s views. coming years
as it does four after the events at
issue, importance cannot be of much parties.
these Karissa will soon be six- importance
teen. Its lies difficulties Fulmer, it will parties cause future and in its fur- Jason D. Ray, Valerie Texas Austin, parents’ ther deterioration of Dept, Safety, Curry, of Public Tim Gen., Atty., Cornyn, Atty. raise their children. Crim. Dist. John Andy Taylor, Jeffrey Boyd, Gregory S. S. Coleman, Attorney Office of the General of Texas, Austin, for Petitioner. Sweat, Arlington, Respon-
David R. dent.
PER CURIAM.
In
concealed-handgun licensing
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
TEXAS
case,
Department
the Texas
of Public
SAFETY, Petitioner,
court of
Safety appeals
appeals’
from the
McLendon, Jr.,
judgment that Noel Allen
eligible
carry
for a
a concealed
license
McLENDON,
Noel Allen
handgun.
holding
Because of our recent
Jr.,
Respondent.
Public
Department
Tune v. Texas
No. 99-0268.
(Tex.2000),
Safety,