X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of a petition to vacate the adoption of C.R.P., and in the alternative, original petition for suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Crystal is the daughter of Billy Ray and Rosemarie, and the biological mother of C.R.P. Crystal was 17 years old and living with her parents when she became pregnant with C.R.P. On Oct. 28, 1999, the trial court terminated Crystal’s parental rights, because she had executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights to her child, C.R.P. The trial court granted the adoption of C.R.P. to her maternal grandparents, Rosemarie and Billy Ray; Billy Ray is now deceased. Subsequently, Crystal married Larry, who has no biological relation to C.R.P. On Sept. 7, 2004, Crystal and Larry filed a petition to vacate the adoption, and in the alternative, an original petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship and requesting a temporary restraining order. Rosemarie filed a motion to dismiss, and the trial court dismissed the case. HOLDING:Affirmed. Crystal did not attack the validity of the affidavit until nearly five years following the termination of her parental rights, well beyond the statutory six-month time frame. Texas Family Code ��161.211(a), (c). Additionally, the validity of the adoption order was not subject to attack after the six month period following the date that the order was signed, but Crystal and Larry did not file the petition to vacate the adoption until Sept. 7, 2004, a time well beyond the statutory six-month time period. The family code dictates that a former parent whose parental rights have been terminated lacks standing to file an original suit affecting the parent-child relationship. �102.006(a)(1). Additionally, if the parent-child relationship between the child and every living parent of the child has been terminated, an original suit affecting the parent-child relationship cannot be filed by any family members or relatives by blood, adoption or marriage of either a former parent whose parent-child relationship has been terminated or of the father of the child. Id. �102.006(a)(3). Thus, because Crystal’s parental rights have been terminated, neither she nor her husband, Larry, have standing to file an original petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Crystal and Larry assert that the application of the Family Code to bar the suit was an unconstitutional deprivation of Crystal’s rights as a parent, because the original termination and adoption were accomplished by subterfuge. Crystal and Larry assert an as-applied constitutional challenge to Family Code �161.211. A claim, including a constitutional claim, must have been asserted in the trial court in order to be raised on appeal. The issue of the constitutionality of Family Code �161.211 was never raised before the trial court. Crystal and Larry assert that they have standing to bring this suit, because Crystal did not voluntarily relinquish her parental rights at the time of the child’s adoption, citing In Re: V.R.W., 41 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). They further state that the ���purported adoption was indeed obtained by coercion, duress, fraud, deception, undue influence, and overreaching by Rosemarie. Crystal and Larry also assert in that subsection that they “have been the only parents the child has known.” In the response to the motion to dismiss, Crystal and Larry assert that the six-month cut-off is not an absolute bar to their cause of action. They also contend that the affidavit of relinquishment was invalid because it was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or overreaching by Rosemarie. None of these assertions in the trial court clearly raise an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of Family Code �162.211. The court does not find an assertion in the trial court that Family Code �162.211 is unconstitutional as applied. The issue has not been preserved for review. OPINION:Holman, J.; Livingston, Dauphinot and Holman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.