Baxter v. Texas Dept. of Human Resources
| Decision Date | 26 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 13878,13878 |
| Citation | 678 S.W.2d 265 |
| Parties | Evelyn BAXTER, et vir., Appellants, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Thomas Goggan, Austin, for appellants.
Ronald Earle, Dist. Atty., Larrilyn K. Russell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Austin, for Tex. Dept. of Human Resources.
Patrick R. Ganne, Austin, appointed attorney ad litem.
Rosemary Coffman, Austin, for intervenors, Barbara and Mark Aarsvold.
Before SHANNON, EARL W. SMITH and GAMMAGE, JJ.
William and Evelyn Baxter appeal the order of the trial court terminating parental rights to their two minor children pursuant to Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 15.02 (Supp.1984). We will affirm the order of the trial court.
In 1981 the parties arranged for Evelyn Baxter's nephew and his wife to care for the Baxter children while the Baxters were temporarily out of the country. The couple moved into the Baxter home, and thereafter discovered many sexually explicit letters, printed materials, and photographs, including nude photographs of Evelyn Baxter and her oldest daughter. All of this material was then released to the Texas Department of Human Resources, and subsequently introduced into evidence at trial. The Baxters now contend, in points of error one through eight and 10, that this evidence was illegally obtained, and therefore should have been excluded at trial. Counsel is unable to cite any authority for this proposition.
The exclusionary rule codified in Tex.Code Cr.P. art. 38.23 (Supp.1984) is inapplicable to the present case because the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to criminal actions, and this is a civil action arising under the Texas Family Code. Tex.Code Cr.P.Ann. art. 1.02 (1977). Furthermore, the evidence about which the Baxters complain was acquired by an individual, not acting as an agent of the State, and is therefore not within the scope of the statutory exclusionary rule. Vargas v. State, 542 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1109, 97 S.Ct. 1144, 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977). Appellants' first eight points and 10th point of error are overruled.
In points of error nine and 11 through 14, the Baxters contend that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the nephew's wife regarding statements made by the children that one of the children stated he had been beaten, was afraid he would be beaten again when his parents returned, and the children had seen the letters and photographs. The Baxters argue that this evidence is hearsay, and should have been excluded. We disagree. This evidence is excepted from the hearsay rule, and is admissible to show the child's state of mind. Melton v. Dallas County Child Welfare Unit, 602 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.Civ.App.1980, no writ).
The Baxters next complain of the trial court's admission of the testimony of a psychologist engaged by the State to examine the children for the purpose of trial preparation. In explaining the factual basis for his expert opinion, he testified concerning statements made during the examination. While they concede that an expert witness may testify about the basis for his opinion, the Baxters contend that the witness must state his opinion prior to such testimony. They cite no authority for this assertion, and such evidence is clearly not impermissible hearsay. Slaughter v. Abilene State School, 561 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.1977).
In their 16th point of error, the Baxters assert that the trial court should not have admitted the social study, prepared in accordance with Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 11.12 (Supp.1984), because such evidence is hearsay. The Family Code expressly authorizes the trial court to order such a study, and we hold that it is freely admissible. Furthermore, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Madden
...deportation hearings); County of Henrico v. Ehlers, supra; Herndon v. Albert, 713 S.W.2d 46 (Mo.App.1986); Baxter v. Texas Dept. of Human Resources, 678 S.W.2d 265 (Tex.App.1984).Deterrence of unconstitutional conduct by state actors has emerged as the primary reason for the exclusionary ru......
-
L.R.M., In Interest of
...law requires this court to determine if the trial court adhered to the clear and convincing standard of proof. Baxter v. Tex. Dept. of Human Resources, 678 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, no writ). The Texas Supreme Court has held termination proceedings should be "strictly scrutini......
-
Leal v. Texas Dept. Prot. & Reg. Serv.
...D.O., 851 S.W.2d at 355 (holding record contained clear and convincing evidence that was factually sufficient); Baxter v. Texas Dep't of Human Resources, 678 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. App.--Austin 1984, no writ). We believe that our sister courts of appeals in fact employ this same exercise in ......
-
Pine v. State
...in civil cases, however, is uncertain. See Vara v. Sharp, 880 S.W.2d 844, 848-49 (Tex.App.--Austin 1994, n.w.h.); Baxter v. Texas. Dep't of Human Resources, 678 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex.App.--Austin 1984, no writ). Further, Pine does not identify specific evidence that should have been suppress......