Court Settles Appellate Split in Termination Cases
When parents relinquish their parental rights for purposes of adoption, or the State convinces a court to take away those parental rights in cases of abuse, the parents' rights are said to be "terminated." These cases are called termination cases.
Termination cases cannot occur in a vacuum. They must be accompanied by appointment of the State, or of an adoption agency or prospective adoptive parents, as temporary conservators of the child. If parental rights were terminated without further action, then there would be no one in charge of the child.
In adoption cases where a biological parent changes his or her mind about termination, or in termination cases brought by the State because of child abuse, the terminated parent may appeal the trial court's decision on termination. There has been a dispute among Texas' Courts of Appeals whether reversing the trial court on its termination decision automatically reverses the appointment of a conservator. Some courts have held that a parent need attack only the termination decision, while other courts have ruled that a parent must appeal both the termination and the conservatorship decisions.
The Texas Supreme Court, in In re: J.A.J., has resolved the issue: The Court ruled that on appeal, a parent must challenge both the decision to terminate and the decision to appoint a conservator if the parent wants his or her child back.
The Court rested its decision on two grounds. First, the Court first noted that the grounds for termination are not the same as those warranting appointment as a conservator, so reversing a termination decision is not necessarily inconsistent with leaving a conservatorship order in place.
Second, the Court observed that the burden of proof for the two issues is different: Termination of parental rights must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, while a preponderance of the evidence governs conservatorship decisions. Thus, it would be possible to conclude the the evidence did not warrant termination but did justify retaining a third person or entity as the child's conservator.
Termination cases cannot occur in a vacuum. They must be accompanied by appointment of the State, or of an adoption agency or prospective adoptive parents, as temporary conservators of the child. If parental rights were terminated without further action, then there would be no one in charge of the child.
In adoption cases where a biological parent changes his or her mind about termination, or in termination cases brought by the State because of child abuse, the terminated parent may appeal the trial court's decision on termination. There has been a dispute among Texas' Courts of Appeals whether reversing the trial court on its termination decision automatically reverses the appointment of a conservator. Some courts have held that a parent need attack only the termination decision, while other courts have ruled that a parent must appeal both the termination and the conservatorship decisions.
The Texas Supreme Court, in In re: J.A.J., has resolved the issue: The Court ruled that on appeal, a parent must challenge both the decision to terminate and the decision to appoint a conservator if the parent wants his or her child back.
The Court rested its decision on two grounds. First, the Court first noted that the grounds for termination are not the same as those warranting appointment as a conservator, so reversing a termination decision is not necessarily inconsistent with leaving a conservatorship order in place.
Second, the Court observed that the burden of proof for the two issues is different: Termination of parental rights must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, while a preponderance of the evidence governs conservatorship decisions. Thus, it would be possible to conclude the the evidence did not warrant termination but did justify retaining a third person or entity as the child's conservator.
