review of best-interest determinations NOT allowed following voluntary relinquishment

Following up on my last post, below, in In the Interest of K.S.L., a Child, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Court of Appeals' Judgment, writing, "we think in the ordinary case a sworn, voluntary, and knowing relinquishment of parental rights [to a child], where the parent expressly attests that termination is in the child’s best interest, would satisfy a requirement that the trial court’s best-interest finding be supported under this higher standard of proof [clear and convincing evidence]."

review of best-interest determinations allowed following voluntary relinquishment

Fourth Court of Appeals declines to follow Dallas Court of Appeals’ holding that when an appellant has executed an affidavit of relinquishment during the trial phase of a parental-rights termination case, her arguments on appeal must be limited to fraud, duress, or coercion in the execution of the affidavit pursuant to Texas Family Code section 161.211(c). Instead, the Fourth Court held that the due process protections afforded parents in such cases allow judicial review of best-interest determinations.

In the Interest of K.S.L.

Opinion:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=f10bcdf3-86ff-4294-8050-76e99e1b127b&coa=coa04&DT=Opinion&MediaID=16129acb-8f50-4121-8c90-38afc7ed7d8d

Dissenting Opinion:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6240f65b-bee6-41ba-9fe7-6b802a057fa0&coa=coa04&DT=Opinion&MediaID=e91312c2-2220-4508-ae11-0c1cc38d98fb

Good reminder, in a Fourth Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion last week, to continue to object to hearsay testimony or request a running objection:
Maurice C. argues the trial court erred in overruling his hearsay objection to Iruegas’s testimony that the Department received a referral in November 2013 alleging neglectful supervision of the children because the parents were using drugs and at one point, the mother became intoxicated with alcohol and Xanax and attempted to slit her throat with a knife in front of her children. We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. See Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho, 298 S.W.3d 631, 638 (Tex. 2009).
Whether or not this testimony was inadmissible hearsay, any error is harmless because Maurice C. did not continue to object to Iruegas’s testimony or request a running objection. To obtain the reversal of a judgment based upon an error of the trial court in admission or exclusion of evidence, it must be shown that the trial court did in fact commit error and that the error complained of probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment or probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.1(a); State v. Cent. Expressway Sign Assocs., 302 S.W.3d 866, 870 (Tex. 2009). Any error in excluding evidence is harmless if other admitted evidence reveals the same facts as that which is excluded. Bryant v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 821 S.W.2d 187, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, writ denied); see Cent. Expressway, 302 S.W.3d at 870 (“[T]he exclusion or admission is likely harmless if the evidence was cumulative, or the rest of the evidence was so one-sided that the error likely made no difference in the judgment.”). After Maurice C. objected to Iruegas’s testimony, Iruegas gave similar testimony without objection. Therefore, any error was harmless.

Associate Judge’s Report and Order is still a final order, but...

While the case set forth in my 10/27/12 post still appears to be the law, this 12/11/13 Fourth Court Opinion says that if the handwritten Associate Judge’s Report and Order lacks a best-interest finding, lacks identifying information, and uses vague abbreviations for the grounds of termination, then the Fourth Court cannot conduct a proper review of the evidence, which requires them to reverse that portion of the order terminating appellant’s parental rights and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in the interest of justice.
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=1a3d035f-687c-4738-bc74-8750309907dd&coa=coa04&DT=Opinion&MediaID=23bffcb1-51e8-429b-9940-b5c7245c60d6

waiver of issue on appeal - trial court should not consider evidence from temporary orders hearing

Reminder to trial attorneys: You waive the issue on appeal that the trial court should not have considered the evidence from the temporary orders hearing at the trial if you fail to raise an objection during trial (Anastasi v. Anastasi, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14994, *9-10 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Dec. 12, 2013)

Very important Fourth Court Opinion

This 10/3/12 Fourth Court Opinion says that the date the associate judge signs his informal, handwritten Associate Judge’s Report and Order starts the timeline for appeal documents to be filed, NOT the date he signs the formal, type-written Final Order:

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=18c6a6fa-13ed-4cca-aea2-6c982f6212bd&coa=coa04&DT=Opinion&MediaID=a340c601-8093-4d03-92e5-58d9cb2edb53
At the Ad Litem Seminar yesterday, Judge Garcia, who wrote the Associate Judge’s Report and Order in this case, said he never intended this outcome and will try to avoid it in the future by either [1] making his notations in the Judge's Notes or [2] by writing on the Associate Judge’s Report and Order that it is not a final order and striking through the language that all parties have been notified of the contents of the Associate Judge’s Report and Order.

Rosie Gonzalez intends to establish a Political Action Committee for
Family Court Lawyers, "FCL-PAC".  Anyone interested may contact her at rosie@rosiegonzalezattorney.com.