R.M. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | 05-18-01127-CV |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF R.M., A CHILD JILL KUTKA, APPELLANT v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE SHAWN INGRAM AND JENNIFER INGRAM, APPELLEES |
Honorable Cynthia Wheless Presiding
Submitted by,
205 W. Louisiana Street, Suite 103
McKinney, Texas 75069
Tel: (469) 777-6129
Email: boydlitigation@gmail.com
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Petitioner / Appellant:
Jill Kutka
Petitioner/Appellant's Counsel in Trial Court:
Mr. Casey T. Boyd
205 W. Louisiana Street, Suite 103
McKinney, Texas 75069
Tel: (469) 777-6129
Email: boydlitigation@gmail.com
Respondent/Appellee:
Collin County Unit of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Respondent/Appellee's Trial Counsel:
Ms. Alyson Dietrich
Assistant District Attorney
Collin County District Attorney's Office
2100 Bloomdale Road, Suite 200
McKinney, Texas 75071
Tel: (972) 548-4336
Fax: (972) 548-4767
Email: adietrich@co.collin.tx.us
Respondent/Appellee's Appellate Counsel:
Mr. John Rolater
Assistant District Attorney
Collin County District Attorney's Office
2100 Bloomdale Road, Suite 100
McKinney, Texas 75071
Tel: (972) 548-4323
Fax: (214) 491-4860
Email: jrolater@co.collin.tx.us
Intervenors/Appellees:
Shawn Ingram and Jennifer Ingram
Intervenors/Appellees' Trial Counsel:
Ms. Rebecca Rowan
KOONSFULLER, P.C.
1717 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75202
Tel: (214) 871-2727
Fax: (214) 871-0196
Email: rrowan@.koonsfuller.com
R.M. is the minor child subject of this suit.
Attorney Ad Litem in Trial Court for R.M., the Child:
Ms. Terri Daniel
6675 Mediterranean Dr., Suite 407
McKinney, Teas 75072
Tel: (469) 519-2739
Fax: (877) 291-1215
Email: terri@terridaniellaw.com
Index of Authorities ........................................................................... 5
Record References ............................................................................. 6
Statement of the Case ........................................................................ 7
Statement on Oral Argument ................................................................. 8
Issues Presented ................................................................................ 8
Statement of Facts ............................................................................. 8
Standard of Review ......................................................................... 12
Arguments and Authorities ................................................................. 13
A. Section 161.211(a) of the Texas Family Code is Unconstitutional as Applied to Appellant ............................................................... 13
B. Intervenors' Petition in Intervention Should Have Been Denied ................ 20
Conclusion .................................................................................... 21
Prayer .......................................................................................... 22
Certificate of Service ........................................................................ 23
Appellant's Appendix ....................................................................... 24
Abdullatif v. Erpile, LLC, 460 S.W.3d 685 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.) ............................................... 20
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex.2000) .............................. 12
City of Dallas v. Carbajal, 324 S.W.3d 537 (Tex.2010) ................................... 12
F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.2007) ................ 13
Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Oper. Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. 1990) ...... 20
H. Tebbs, Inc. v. Silver Eagle Distribs., 797 S.W.2d 80 (Tex.App.-Austin 1990, no writ) .............................................................. 20
In re C.M.D., 287 S.W.3d 510_(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) ........ 14
In re C.P.J., 129 S.W.3d 573 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied) ...................... 13
In re C.T.C., 365 S.W. 3d 853 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2012) .............................. 18, 19
In re D.J.R., 319 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2010, pet. denied) ....... 13, 14, 18, 19
In re D.K.M., 242 S.W.3d 863, 865 n. 1, (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, no pet.) ............. 12
In re E.R., 335 S.W.3d 816 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, pet._granted) ................... 15, 16
In re E.R., 385 S.W. 3d 552 (Tex. 2012) ............................................ 14, 15, 19
In re M.N., 262 S.W.3d 799 (Tex. 2008) .................................................... 15
In re Union Carbide, 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008) ......................................... 20
In the Interest of B.G., 317 S.W.3d 250, 258 (Tex.2010) .................................. 15
In the Interest of J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex.2009) ...................................... 15Peek v. Equipment Serv. Co. of San Antonio, 779 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. 1989) ............ 13
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) ................................................... 14
Serna v. Webster, 908 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1995, no writ) ............. 20
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 646, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) .......... 15
Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.1993) ............ 13
Texas Dep't of Corrections v. Herring, 513 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.1974) ........................ 13
Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.2004) ............... 12
Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636___(Tex.1999) ................................. 12
Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n v. White, 46 S.W.3d 864 (Tex.2001) ...... 12
Walker v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) .................. 14, 19
Tex.Fam.Code Section 161.001(1)(K) ............................................. 7, 9, 11
Tex.Fam.Code Section 161.211(a) ..................... 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21
Tex.Fam.Code Section 263.405 ........................................................... 14
TRAP 20.1 .................................................................................... 12
TRAP 39.1 ..................................................................................... 8
The Record references listed below are used throughout Appellant's Brief:
On May 29, 2018, Appellant filed her Original Petition for Bill of Review on seeking to review an order terminating her parental rights which was signed by the Court on October 7, 2016 in Cause Number 417-30048-2014 and styled "In the Interest of R.M., A Child". The order terminating Appellant's parental rights was predicated on a finding by the Court that Appellant executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by Section 161.001(1)(K) of the Texas Family Code. CR at 7.
On August 24, 2018, Intervenors filed a Petition in Intervention in Suit and Plea to the Jurisdiction. CR at 62.
On September 6, 2018, Intervenors filed their Original Answer to Original Petition for Bill of Review. CR at 68.
On September 10, 2018, Intervenors filed a Brief in Support of Plea to the Jurisdiction. CR at 75.
Appellant's Original Petition for Bill of Review and Intervenors' Petition in Intervention and Plea to the Jurisdiction were set for a hearing on September 10, 2018. The trial court heard Intervenors' Petition in Intervention and Plea to the Jurisdiction, after which the trial court signed an Order granting Intervenors' Petition in Intervention and Plea to the Jurisdiction, and dismissing Appellant's Petition for Bill of Review with prejudice. RR 14:17-18; 33:8-11; CR at 87.
This is an appeal from the Order Granting Intervenors' Petition in Intervention in Suit for Bill of Review, and Intervenors' Plea to the Jurisdiction, which was signed by the trial court on September 10, 2018.
Pursuant to Rule 39.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant requests oral argument and believes that the decisional process would be significantly aided by oral argument.
C. Section 161.211(a) of the Texas Family Code is Unconstitutional as Applied to Appellant.
D. Intervenors' Petition in Intervention Should Have Been Denied.
On August 27, 2015, in the underlying proceeding to terminate Appellant's parental rights, the parties entered into a Mediated Settlement Agreement wherein the parties entered into a series of agreements which resulted in Appellant relinquishing her parental rights, and which allowed Appellant to have specific periods of supervised access to the child "after entry of the final order." CR at 76.
Intervenors were not parties to the underlying termination proceeding, they were not physically present at mediation, and they were not signatories to the Mediated Settlement Agreement. Notwithstanding, the Mediated SettlementAgreement included representations made by Intervenors regarding Appellant's future access to the child. CR at 26.
On October 7, 2016, the "Final Order in Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship - Termination of Parental Rights, and Appointment of Managing Conservator" (hereinafter "Termination Order") was signed by the Court based on the Mediated Settlement Agreement. The Final Termination Order terminated Appellant's parental rights, and in so doing, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best interest of the child, and that Appellant executed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of...
To continue reading
Request your trial