*1 аrgument, rea- appeals rejected Jackson’s by HOLICK, Petitioner,
soning final conviction followed that a Mable Jo David contemplated a probation was not situation were, rule, by the and thаt even if it ux., Danny Eugene SMITH Et completion proba- of evidence of successful Respondents. the court tion could not be considered C-3261, Nos. C-3262*. appeal. introduced on when 609(c) language Thе of Rule is clear Supreme Court Texas. part, dispositive. provides, in relevant It 6, 1985. Feb. ad- of a conviction is not that “[e]vidence Rehearing Denied March 1985. probation this rule if missible under ... satisfactorily completed for the has been person
crime for was convict- 609(c). ed....” Tex.R.Evid. secondary appeals’ ra
The court of
tionale, comple of successful that evidence considered, probation could
tion of not be The requires little discussion. trial
also copy probation a of the
record included testimony that time
order at the satisfactory making
trial witness
progress. possibility The that the -witness re completed probation
would have before comparison
trial was from evident had this not
record with a calendar. Even so, not appeals the court of
been that none
ascertain with confidence exceptions applica Rule would The on retrial. conclusion
ble again is
evidence would have been admitted unsupported. analysis sim
therefore by this
ply does rise to the standard set case, com in a that the еrror
court similar injury cannot be
plained of “an Galveston, H
repaired by trial.” another Jackson, 262, 54 Ry. Tex.
& S.A. Co. (1900).
S.W. below courts reversed, is re- and the cause
therefore trial.
manded for a new
* companion cases. These are direct *2 Tatum, Whitehouse, peti-
Thomas T. tioner. Caldwell, Bain,
Bain, Files, Allen Jerry & respondents. Tyler, for SPEARS, Justice. the involuntary
This case involves termi- parent-child relationship nation of the be- Jo Holick and her tween Mable two of Danny Eugene and Mrs. children. Mr. brought suit Smith for termination and for two Holick children. After trial, non-jury cоurt ordered termina- parent-child relationship tion of the adoption. ap- The court of peals, unpublished opinion, in an affirmed. We reverse the of the courts below. early
In Ms. March Holiсk left the family. children the Smith Holick with Ms. financially support had her- been unable Although self or the children. she was fed, they keep able to them clothed and place sleep no sometimes had but thе car. were The children behind on their immunizations and had head lice Ms. when niece, Smith, Holick’s Mrs. offered to take get care of until Mrs. Holick on them her feet. leaving
After the children with the Smiths, went Ms. Holick to Dаllas with her youngest boyfriend. live with her There, employment she obtained as a wait- Smiths, money no ress. She sent to the nor they expect money did her to send support. children’s She did not visit months, write the children for оver al- six though she call and talk them did once during period. have Smiths two children of their
own, church, very active in the and are financially support able to the children. report The social workеr’s concludes that models, the Smiths are excellent role ex- children, press appear love for them. want to presented appeal on is whether issue Family the Texas Code authorizеs termina- tion circumstances. We are under these upon (3) called to construe section 15.02 of the Code,
Family provides child, part: petition A requesting termination of remained least six months, relаtionship respect petitioner to a who is not may termination is the best interest of *3 if the court finds that: the child. (1)the parent has: undisputed It is voluntarily that Ms. Holick (A) voluntarily left the child alone or placed the children in the of the possession possession in the of another not the away Smiths and that she remained parent expressed and an intent not to months, though least six even she had ex- return; or prеssed an intent to return for the children.
(B) undisputed It voluntarily that Ms. Holick left the child alone or made no support possession payments expected in the of another but was not to not the Smiths, the did expressing without an she not contest the intent to return, finding trial court’s that the for the ade- termination quate support child, would in the of the and re- best interest contends, however, of the away period mainеd for a children. She of at least months; required that she was not actually sup- three or to children, port only the arrange- but make (C) voluntarily left the child alone or adequate ments for their support. possession in the of another without providing adequate support of the child right existing natural be period and remained for a of at parents tween and their children is of con months; least six or G.M., stitutiоnal dimensions. In re 596 (D) knowingly placed knowingly or 846, (Tex.1980); Wiley S.W.2d 846 v. allowed the in child to remain condi- 349, (Tex.1976). Spratlan, 543 S.W.2d 352 surroundings endanger tions or which Indeed, paren “involuntary termination of physical well-being the or emоtional rights tal involves fundamental constitu child; or G.M., rights.” tional In re 596 S.W.2d at
(E)
parental right
846. This
engaged in
natural
has been
knowingly
conduct or
“essential,”
placed
persons
characterized as
“a basic civil
child with
who en-
man,”
right of
gaged
precious
in conduct
“far more
than
endangers
property rights.”
Illinois,
physical
well-being
Stanley
See
v.
or emotional
of the
child;
645, 651,
1208, 1212,
405 U.S.
92
S.Ct.
31
(1976).
L.Ed.2d 551
A termination decree
(F) failed
supрort
the child in ac-
final,
complete,
irrevocable and divests
ability during peri-
cordance with his
right
for all time that natural
as well as all
year ending
od of one
within six
legal rights, privileges,
powers
duties and
filing
mоnths of the date of the
respect
except
to each
for the
other
petition;
right
Wiley,
child’s
to inherit.
543 S.W.2d
§
352;
(Ver
at
Tex.Fam.Code Ann.
15.07
addition,
and in
the court further finds
1975). Moreover,
sup
non
the evidence in
that termination is
the best interest
port of termination must be clear and con
of the child.
vincing
may involuntarily
before a court
§
(Vernon Supp.
Tex.Fam.Code Ann. 15.02
parent’s rights. Santosky
terminate a
1984).
Kramer,
745, 747,
1388,
455 U.S.
102 S.Ct.
pаrent-
The trial court terminated the
1391,
(1980);
In delay is no time will be noted thаt there Petitioners, Ux., Joseph L. SPEER Et required parent if a leaves before suit to return. expresses an intent STOVER, Dewey Individually required Three months absence is before James Community In the Estate is left with As Survivor terminatiоn where the child Stover, Deceased, Imogene provi- of Melba parent someone other than a and no Respondent. period support is made. The time sion expands even if the сhild is to six months No. C-3668. support is the other and no left with provided. coordinates a Supreme The Tex.Fam.Code of Texas. Court lengthened progression conduct with de- Feb. 1985. § from 15.- lays. The omission of “for” 02(1)(C) logiсally intended. termi- provisions
These do not authorize acutely indi- only
nation the case rela-
gent. Termination
tionship is authorized in situation legislative meet the re-
where through pover-
quirements for termination *5 neglect, other condition
ty, abuse
falling these sections. within ig- in this instance
Denying termination inter-
nores those situations where the best by is termination of
est of the child served case, relationship. parent-child In this interest trial court found that the best stable, served
of the child would be
loving of the Smiths. This environment by Ms. Holick.
finding was not contested parent-child it is true that the bond
While it is not true that all
very strong, their chil- the best interest of
provide for
dren. through running
A common thread the “best protection
Tex.Fam.Code express lan- of the child.”
interest regarding termina-
guage provisions relationship should
tion of trial court finds that followed when the interest of the be in the best
to do so would
child. judg- I affirm the
Accordingly, would judg- render courts below and
ments
ment that the termination
granted. KILGARLIN, JJ., join
McGEE and dissenting opinion.
this