*1 In the Interest of UNNAMED
CHILD.
No. 18175. Texas, Appeals
Court of Civil
Fort Worth.
May 1979.
Rehearing Denied June A. Her- Herridge, and Kenneth
May & Dallas, appellant. ridge, Mack, Thomp- Brown, & Wynn, Renfro Worth, Schur, son, Fort and William M. appellee.
OPINION SPURLOCK, Justice. un- of an paternal grandparents judg- summary appeal from
named in their requested denying all relief ment *2 in which she stated petition Julie Ann adoption. question for The sole Strickland of the presented was the father grandparents is whether the have that A. Wilson Chris form, she testi- standing petition summary adoption baby. for of the in Stated they standing. grandparents child. We by conclude have that both fied affidavit do transcript The does not reflect whether the agreed whatever she decided that represented child was or was not in the trial and assist her. She baby they with would by guardian up court for ad litem. the child putting Chris discussed Gladney Home. Edna adoption with the We reverse and remand. her 1,1978 pleaded with Chris Prior to June 24, July On 1978 an child was unnamed baby. keep the have them marry him and County, par- bom in Tarrant Texas. The that then decided at first refused and She ties in this case have admitted that baby. keep marry she would him biological father of the child was Chris Wil- then She shortly died thereafter. Chris son. Wilson was never married to the personally and stated that she visited child’s mother legitimate and he did not Wilson telephone Evelyn with and James 1, child. Wilson died on June 1978. On Mrs. that Mr. and they finally decided July parental rights 1978 the of the then at adopt the child. She Wilson should mother were terminated a decree of the while in an emotional length testified that 324th Gladney district court. The Edna did signed papers some but state she had appointed Home was managing conservator testi- they were. then not know what She of the The child. child has been and contin- any consent she fied revoked that she ues to be under the direction of the home. baby wants her and she either have made appears that only Chris Wilson was the permit Mr. the court requests back or appellants, wife, child of James Wilson and baby. adopt and Mrs. Wilson to Evelyn. years age He was 18 of when he mo- the home’s The trial court sustained Wilsons, died. The grandparents, filed a judgment. It rendered summary tion for petition adoption They for of the child. oth- denying adoption and all judgment admit adopt that a factor in their desire to requested by er the Wilsons. relief the child is that their blood line will end if they that, cannot the Wilsons child. The home has The home admits if refused to adoption. consent to the Wilsons for standing petition have alleged have that the questions home has withheld its numerous fact adoption, there are consent good without cause it in and that is authority for its conclu- As to be resolved. adopted interest of the child to be standing, the Wilsons lack sion petition requests them. Their the court Service, Inc. v. home cites Lutheran Social requirements waive the (Tex.Civ.App. Farris, 483 S.W.2d —Aus- reside with them for six months and that e.). There writ ref’d n. r. tin the managing conservator consent to the a cou- excepted to adoption agency specially child of adoption of a ple’s petition for managing conserva- agency was which The judgment. home moved summary for peti- Exception tor. was made because It claimed the legal strangers Wilsons are of the allege that the consent tion failed to they child. The Wilsons admit have court held obtained. The agency had been legal relationship no Fur- with the child. necessary and was agency’s consent ther, the home claims the Wilsons have sustained court should have the trial expressed any adopting never in decid- note this case was exception. action, any they to this nor have of the Texas effectiveness ed before the ever even question. seen the child in The Family Code. home concludes the lack Wilsons adoption of this child. (1975), Family Code Ann. § managing conservator provides that if a opposition Wilsons filed affidavits consent appointed, been judgment. subject child has summary motion for required They signed by managing conservator filed one detailed affidavit MASSEY, adoption Justice, concurring. unless the managing conservator Chief petitioner However, is the for adoption. Any factor controlling decision 16.05(d) provides if the court finds by prospective whether managing conservator’s consent is re- would adoptive parents be in best interests fused, or good has been revoked without child, ques- subject would raise the cause, the requirement. court can waive the *3 “Compared if not tion: to its interests the Here Wilsons alleged have that consent pro- adopted adopted by all or if other at has been good withheld without cause. adopted spective parents?” urges The home Wilsons to the policy is public Our committed standing petition adoption lack to for be such proposition that under circumstances they legal cause are strangers to the child. to to be presented as those the court that We conclude this contention without mer is proper adoptive adopted by parents is begs it and question. express pur The to be greater of the child than not pose of the statutory adoption scheme is ques- adopted Thereby part all. of the at parental to create a relationship with the (This ordi- is is the posed tion answered. rights, powers, responsibilities pertain case.) However, applied as nary adoption ing thereto persons between who to be remaining part question would adoption strangers. were generally legal competing upon pair of which the matter fail discern how the fact Wilsons pre- be prospective adoptive parents should legal strangers, although are blood kin to ferred, child. interest of the in child, petitioning disables them from for may practice adopted Under our adoption. Family Code Ann. 16.02 § years open under- not in later the files to (1975), provides eligible is any adult event upon ancestry in the take research his adopted. a child who is to be there is least might he desire to do so. At Therefore, we conclude the fact to look impediment to be overcome for him legal are strangers Wilsons not does mean Indeed, they be into the files. even if as a matter of they law precluded are from opened it would be a rare case where petitioning the court adoption. for writer, be successful. The research would Although the admit they Wilsons research, hobby is receives whose ancestral legal rights have no relationship with or United correspondence from all over the child, recognize we blood rela a as adopted persons who were States from tionship exists between the Wilsons and the ham- children thus found themselves child. While we do not hold that this rela pered.
tionship gives
any legal rights
the Wilsons
Haley
publication
Alex
Since
interest,
or
we note they have
interest in
an
Roots,
there has been tremendous
book
particular
guardian.
child as a natural
persons seeking to ascertain
stimulus for
Micou,
Lamar v.
U.S.
S.Ct.
came
immigrant ancestors
when their
(1885).
legal
MASSEY, J.,C. concurs. by a adopted desire, though permitted to be HUGHES, J., than his blood kindred. couple dissents. other para- be Justice, process should HUGHES, dissenting. agency adoption mount. respectfully I dissent to the reversal of judgment mat- of the trial court in this
ter and would affirm its action for FOR MOTION ON OPINION following reasons: REHEARING A suit for not SPURLOCK, Justice. be or prosecuted by any filed individual Edna Glad- rehearing the motion for On “person who is not a with an interest in the failing to discuss claims that ney Home child” within the meaning Family of Tex. * we 16.02 11.03 and relationship § of § (1975). Code Ann. the classical of'“one of admit commission paternal grandparents 2. The of an ille- attempt statutory construction: errors of gitimate legitimated child who has not been meaning of one sen ing to determine by the biological child’s father are not *4 regard tence a statute without of virtue of relationship their blood alone statute as in the legislative intent revealed “person(s) an with in the child” there is no direct a true that whole”. It is meaning Family within the of Tex. Code However, 11.03. or citation to § reference (1975). Ann. 1103 § scheme the entire thoroughly we considered grandparent may 3. A not seek access to affecting parent- the suits adoptions of and grandchild pursuant his or her Tex. Fam- to of our relationship to rendition prior child ily 14.03(d) 1978-79), (Supp. Code Ann. § judgment. parent-child after the relationship between general the correctly The home states parent the child’s last the surviving having an inter- persons rule of 11.03 that § judicial child has been by terminated decree affect may file suit to est in a child appointing as the managing child’s conser- points relationship. The home parent-child child-placing vator a licensed agency and rule of exception general no out that authorizing placement the child for of position is that in 11. Its 11.03is stated § § adoption by agency. that exception express is no because there 4. Blood relatives of a child who have may be modified has not been nor 11.03 § not a relationship established court-ordered We do of the code. by any provision other with the judg- to rendition standing to agree. referred to not terminating ment the parent-child relation- By that ref- bring ship between the living child and the child’s general that contemplated erence we parents by are not virtue of their blood by specific modified rule of 11.03 was § relationship “person(s) alone with an inter- adoption, relating to statutory provisions est in the child” meaning within the of Tex. that We noted particularly 16.02. § Family (1975). Code Ann. 11.03 § adoptions is for statutory scheme for “person(s) 5. Persons who are not with relation- creating parent-child purpose of an meaning interest in the child” within the previously who were ship those between (1975), Family of Tex. Code do Ann. § this see how strangers. We fail to legal request not have a court by denying access purpose is best served placement order of the child in their home strangers. legal who are the courts to those by child-placing agency a licensed or to seek adopt. eligible to any adult 16.02 makes § judicial agency review of a decision con- Further, 16.05(d) that provides § place not such child in their home. an managing conservator sent of the holding I view the in Lutheran Social under waived adoption may be Service, Farris, (Tex. Inc. v. S.W.2d certain circumstances. e.) Civ.App. writ ref’d n. r. as —Austin opinion is our Coupled together it proper authority feel in this case and relating to preservation specific provisions that the integrity that Family * Ann. statutory Code are to references All adoption modify general of 11.03. rule
It is nonsensical to adult any make provide and to that consent of the
managing conservator be waived court, enjoyment and then deny provisions by holding legal
these stran-
gers adopt. cannot maintain It is a suit to
well settled that interest of the best importance. is of The home’s utmost
position agencies is that licensed be the judges
shall final of the best interest
of the child. opinion our
legislature has vested the courts of power responsibility.
state with this
Finally the home claims that prospective adoptive
fact it has vested
parents possession gives with
prospective adoptees “legally cognizable requirement
interest”. We know of no adoption agency every participate *5 any adult is § 16.02 states that adopt. fail to dis Therefore we placement
cern how home
legally possessors vests an disqualifies
the child and others. all It is which we interest of the child with
are concerned. that access opinion is our
to the courts of best serve this state will goal. rehearing
Motion for overruled.
HUGHES, J., further dissents without
opinion. COMPANY, MACHINERY
ANDERSON
v.
Robert Lee HARBER.
No. 12850. Texas, Appeals
Court of Civil
Austin.
Aug.