Texas Dept. of Human Services v. E.B.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C-8617,C-8617 |
| Citation | 802 S.W.2d 647 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Petitioners, v. E.B., Respondent |
Jim Mattox, Delmar L. Cain, Sue Berkel, Suzanne Covington, John J. Sampson, Austin, for petitioners.
Leonard F. Green, Austin, for respondent.
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
The Respondent's motion for rehearing is overruled. Our opinion of June 20, 1990, however, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.
The issue before this court is whether Rule 277 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure means exactly what it says, that is, "In all jury cases the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions." Tex.R.Civ.P. 277. This issue arises in the context of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which the Texas Department of Human Services filed suit for termination of the parent-child relationship between the parents and their two female children. After a jury trial, using broad-form questions, the trial court rendered a decree of termination based upon the jury's verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause, holding that multiple alternative submissions were proper. 766 S.W.2d 387. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The Texas Department of Human Services sued for termination of the parent-child relationship between the mother, Respondent E.B., and her two minor daughters. 1 The suit was based on alleged violations of the Texas Family Code § 15.02(1)(D), (E) and on the ground that the termination would be in the best interest of the children, § 15.02(2). The district court signed a Final Decree of Termination based upon the jury's verdict. There is no complaint with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict of the jury.
The judge submitted a single question for each child at trial, under the Texas Family Code § 15.02(1)(D), (E), as a broad-form submission required by this court in Rule 277. We approve of this question, which was taken from volume 5, section 218.01B of Texas Pattern Jury Charges:
Should the parent-child relationship between [Respondent E.B.] and the child [E.B.] be terminated?"
Answer: "Yes" or "No"
Answer: ______
Should the parent-child relationship between [Respondent E.B.] and the child [B.B.] be terminated?
Answer: "Yes" or "No"
Answer: ______
Accompanying these questions were instructions, substantially in accordance with volume 5, section 218.01A of Texas Pattern Jury Charges, including a description of the rights, privileges, duties, and powers of a parent and definitions of the terms "termination," "clear and convincing evidence," and "endanger." The crucial instructions basically track the statutory grounds for termination as set forth in the Texas Family Code § 15.02(1)(D), (E). Additionally, the jury was given a list of "some of the factors to consider in determining the best interest of the child" taken directly from Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex.1976).
In Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 475, 240 S.W. 517, 522 (1922), this court mandated the submission of "each issue distinctly and separately." Texas thus developed a very complicated system for issue submission. In 1973, Rule 277 was amended and provided in part:
It shall be discretionary with the court whether to submit separate questions with respect to each element of a case or to submit issues broadly. It shall not be objectionable that a question is general or includes a combination of elements or issues.
By this amendment, the court replaced the previous language that required issues to be submitted "distinctly and separately." In Mobil Chemical Co. v. Bell, 517 S.W.2d 245, 255 (Tex.1974), this court said the new rule meant what it said: simply ask whether the party was negligent. This court explained in a later decision that Rule 277 was designed to abolish the "distinctly and separately" requirement. Brown v. American Transfer & Storage Co., 601 S.W.2d 931, 937 (Tex.1980).
Acknowledging that there "may be some continuing question" about broad-form submissions, this court in Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911, 925 (Tex.1981), expressly overruled all of the cases that arose before the 1973 revisions and which followed the decisions in Fox. See generally Pope & Lowerre, The State of the Special Verdict, 11 St. Mary's L.J. 1 (1979). In the 1988 amendments to Rule 277 this court said broad-form submission "shall" be used "whenever feasible" and eliminated trial court discretion to submit separate questions with respect to each element of a case.
Rule 277 mandates broad form submissions "whenever feasible," that is, in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished.
The history and struggle to recognize broad-form submission is a long one. The rule unequivocally requires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Farmers Ins. Co. v. Soriano
...jury by virtue of an incidental comment on the weight of the evidence is whether the court abused its discretion. Department of Human Serv. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.1990). The test for abuse of discretion is not whether, in the opinion of the reviewing court, the facts present an approp......
-
Westgate, Ltd. v. State
...798, 801 (Tex.1984). Before today, we have consistently embraced this rule to encourage such submissions. See Texas Dep't of Hum. Serv. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.1990); see also Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls, 616 S.W.2d 911, 924 (Tex.1981). Now the majority merely pays lip-service to such pr......
-
Religious of Sacred Heart of Texas v. City of Houston
...even urged, to submit the controlling issues of a case in broad terms so as to simplify the jury's chore." Texas Dept. of Human Services v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex.1990). Here, the trial judge properly followed that directive, giving to the jury, without complication, an acceptable b......
-
Reinhart v. Young
...In 1973, by amendment to TEX.R.CIV.P. 277, this court mandated broad form submission "whenever feasible." See Texas Dept. of Human Serv. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex.1990); Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262, 266 (Tex.1992). The unavoidable accident instruction remains an unwanted ve......
-
Civil Litigation
...to insure compliance. Jury charge error is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. [ Texas Dept. of Human Services v. E.B. , 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990).] If there is error in the charge, the court must determine whether the error is harmful by reviewing the pleadings, the evide......
-
CHAPTER 2 Standards of Review and Scope of Review
...curiam) (citations omitted).[275] This reversible-error standard is discussed in Chapter 3.[276] Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. E.B., 802 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. 1990); Tex. R. Civ. P. 277.[277] Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex. 2000).[278] This reversible-error standar......