In re Interest of Minor Children

• Decision Date: 10 February 2021
• Docket Number: No. 10-18-00149-CV,10-18-00149-CV
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF MINOR CHILDREN
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF MINOR CHILDREN

No. 10-18-00149-CV

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

February 10, 2021

From the County Court at Law Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 96952D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Katherine B. Booth appeals the trial court's order imposing sanctions against her. We affirm.

Jurisdiction

On May 4, 2018, Booth filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's Order to Transfer Suit and Order Granting Sanctions and Attorney Fees and Costs. Booth noted that she sought only to appeal the portion of the order that related to the sanctions imposed against her. We notified Booth that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction because it did not appear that there was a final judgment in the case. Booth subsequently notified the court that a final order had been signed by the trial court on October 9, 2018. A supplemental clerk's record was filed containing the order of adoption that disposed of all pending parties and claims. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Background

Booth filed an Original Petition for Adoption of Children in the County Court at Law No. 1 in Ellis County, Texas on September 18, 2017. The petition requested adoption of two siblings—D.V. and S.V.¹ At the time Booth filed the petition, the Department of Family and Protective Services was managing conservator of both children as a result of their parents' rights being terminated. The termination proceeding and issues related to the placement of the children occurred in Bailey County, Texas. The termination of the mother's rights to the children was affirmed on appeal, and both children were transferred to the Department's adoption unit. See In re S.V. and D.V., No. 07-16-00279-CV, 2016 WL 7634473 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Dec. 30, 2016, pet. denied) (mem op.). The father of the children voluntarily relinquished his rights and did not appeal. Id. at *1 n.1. After the appeal was concluded, the 287th Judicial District Court in Bailey County retained jurisdiction over both children until such time as a final decision regarding their placement was determined.

Booth's client, LaToya Carrington, is the maternal aunt of D.V. and S.V. D.V. was placed with Carrington by the Department while the termination case was proceeding, but S.V. was placed with a non-related, foster family in Bailey County—the Intervenors. At the time Booth filed the petition for adoption in Ellis County, S.V. had been residingwith the Intervenors for approximately three years. S.V. never resided with Carrington. A third, younger sibling, C.V., was removed in a separate proceeding and also placed with Carrington.

After Booth filed the petition for adoption in Ellis County, she served it on the Department in Austin. Booth did not serve a copy of the petition on any of the pertinent individuals in Bailey County—S.V.'s attorney ad litem, S.V.'s guardian ad litem, the attorney representing the Department in Bailey County, the Department's caseworker, or the Intervenors.

The Intervenors, with the approval of the Department, S.V.'s attorney ad litem, and S.V.'s guardian ad litem, filed a petition in Bailey County on November 2, 2017 to adopt S.V. An adoption hearing was scheduled by the Bailey County court for December 6, 2017. The Ellis County court set a hearing on Carrington's petition for adoption for December 5, 2017. After the hearing on December 5, the Ellis County court signed an order of adoption for both D.V. and S.V. that was filed with the clerk of the court the same day. Booth faxed a copy of the Ellis County adoption order to the Bailey County clerk of court after 5 p.m. on December 5. Because of the Ellis County order, the scheduled adoption could not proceed in Bailey County. S.V. was aware of her pending adoption by the Intervenors and the date it was to take place. The Intervenors invited friends and family from out of the area to attend the adoption. The Intervenors, S.V., and their friends and family were made aware when they appeared for the December 6 adoption hearing that the adoption could not proceed.

The Intervenors moved for a new trial in Ellis County on December 6. The Ellis County court granted the motion, vacated the adoption order, and appointed an amicus attorney to evaluate the best interests of D.V. and S.V. The Intervenors also moved to transfer the proceeding to Bailey County or to strike Carrington's petition for adoption and for recovery of their attorney fees, expenses, and costs as a sanction because of Booth's actions. S.V.'s attorney ad litem also moved to transfer the case to Bailey County and sought reimbursement on behalf of Bailey County for his fees, costs and expenses. The Department additionally filed motions to transfer the proceeding to Bailey County and to strike Carrington's original petition.

A report was filed by the amicus attorney on January 26, 2018 that noted, among other findings, that Booth failed to disclose vital evidence to the court regarding S.V.'s place of residence, S.V.'s placement in an intended adoptive home, and S.V.'s pending adoption case in Bailey County. The amicus attorney recommended that S.V. not be adopted by Carrington and that the case be transferred to Bailey County for consideration of S.V.'s adoption.

After a hearing on the motions to transfer and for sanctions, the Ellis County court orally informed Booth, "I do anticipate awarding sanctions of attorneys' fees against you and your client." The court additionally noted:

Ms. Booth, you have today told me you had knowledge of the pending adoption and failed to disclose that to this court. I find that lack of candor very disturbing. But what I find even more appalling is your lack of awareness of the professional impropriety of that action. I'm going to take that into account.

In its written Order to Transfer Suit and Order Granting Sanctions and Attorney Fees and Costs, the court noted: "This Court finds that KATHERINE B[.] BOOTH, attorney for Petitioner LATOYA CARRINGTON, engaged in conduct in this case which significantly interfered with the Court's core function in deciding and entering a final judgment regarding the adoption petition as outlined in Attachment A." Attachment A is the letter ruling signed by the trial court on March 9, 2018, in which the court specifically stated: "[T]he Court will invoke its inherent power to sanction Ms. Booth for her conduct in this case, which significantly interfered with the Court's core function in deciding and entering a final judgment regarding the adoption petition." The trial court sanctioned Booth for her conduct, ordering that she pay the attorney's fees, costs and expenses sustained by the Intervenors. The trial court also directed that Booth reimburse Carrington, or pay on Carrington's behalf, the attorney's fees, expenses and costs billed by the Ellis County amicus attorney and that Booth reimburse Bailey County for the attorney's fees, costs and expenses billed by the attorney ad litem for the children. The order additionally transferred the case to Bailey County.

Booth filed a Motion on Submission to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment; and Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on April 24, 2018. The basis of her request was that it was "improper for the Court to enter orders that awarded sanctions against Katherine B. Booth, as such sanctions are unreasonable, unsupported by the evidence and lacking in finding and evidence of bad faith." There was no additional detail in her motion.

The Ellis County court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 15, 2018, reiterating that Booth knowingly failed to disclose that an adoption hearing for S.V. was scheduled for the day after the adoption hearing in Ellis County. In its conclusions of law, the trial court noted that sanctions were imposed under its inherent power as Booth had interfered with a core function of the court in deciding and entering a final judgment regarding the adoption petition. The court further concluded that Booth's actions were in contravention of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and that the sanctions imposed were directly correlated to the harm she inflicted on the other parties. Booth's Motion on Submission to Modify, Correct, or Reform Judgment was overruled by operation of law.

After the case was transferred, the Bailey County court severed D.V. from the pending case and transferred his adoption proceeding back to Ellis County. Carrington was subsequently approved to adopt D.V.

Issues

Booth presents the following issues:

I. Was it a violation of Appellant's substantive and procedural due process rights for the Trial Court to issue "inherent power" sanctions without first providing Appellant notice and a hearing?

II. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by issuing "inherent power" sanctions without a finding that Appellant's conduct was in "bad faith?"

III. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by issuing "inherent power" sanctions where the evidence does not support "bad faith" conduct by Appellant?

IV. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion by finding that Appellant violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.03(a)(3) by failing to disclose information to the Trial Court at a non-ex parte hearing?

V. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant interfered with the Trial Court's traditional core function of deciding and entering final judgment?

VI. Did the Trial Court abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions against Appellant in the amount of $9,842.38 where sanctions were not appropriate, unjust, and where the amount of sanctions is unsupported by the record?

Discussion

A. Standard of Review. A court's decision to impose sanctions involves answering two distinct issues: "(1) whether conduct is sanctionable and (2) what sanction to impose." Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Products, LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 715 (Tex. 2020). Booth challenges both issues in this case.

We review a trial court's...