Parental Rights

Texas Parental Right to Make Medical and Psychological Treatment Decisions

Published on: January 3, 2017 | by Kelly McClure

In Davenport v. Davenport, a mother and a father each appealed from a trial court’s order related to their counter-petitions to modify the parent-child relationship. The couple was divorced in 2005, one year after their daughter was born. Ten years later, the mother filed a first amended petition to modify the parent-child relationship, hoping to modify a prior modification order rendered in 2012.

In the prior order, she and the father were appointed joint managing conservators of the daughter, but the court didn’t grant either the exclusive right to designate her residence. The order also granted both parents independent rights to make decisions about the daughter’s medical and psychological care and education as long as each first conferred with the other. Neither had to pay child support, although the father had to provide the daughter with health insurance. The parents were granted weeklong periods of possession during the school year and alternating two-week periods of possession during summers.

The mother asked to be appointed a sole managing conservator of the daughter or a primary joint managing conservator with the exclusive right to designate a primary residence, to make legal and educational decisions, and to consent to health care treatments for the daughter. She asked that the father have access through a standard possession order and that he pay monthly child support. The father counter-petitioned to have the rights that the mother wanted.

Grandparent Tries to Intervene in SAPCR Case in Texas

Published on: December 21, 2016 | by Kelly McClure

There is a strong presumption that a child’s best interest is served when a natural parent is awarded custody in Texas. This presumption puts a heavy burden on someone who is not a parent who wants conservatorship of a child. The non-parent will have to prove to the court that appointing a parent as managing conservator would harm the child’s physical or emotional wellbeing.

Under Texas Family Code §102.003, there are 14 different categories to which someone may belong in order to bring a SAPCR (Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship). A child or parent has the right to file a case. Moreover, so do certain other people who care for a child for a minimum of six months, as long as the six-month period ends less than 90 days before the date they file a petition.

In Re HF is a recent Texas appellate proceeding involving a grandmother’s plea in intervention in a lawsuit that affected the parent-child relationship. The case arose when the Attorney General brought a SAPCR proceeding to establish conservatorship over a mother and father’s child. The judge signed an agreed order, and the father appealed it. On the same day, the child’s grandmother petitioned to intervene in the SAPCR proceeding.

Texas Court Considers Parent-Child Relationship After Possible Suicide Attempt

Published on: December 19, 2016 | by Kelly McClure

In the Interest of NFM is a recent Texas appellate case involving a lawsuit altering the parent-child relationship. The case arose when NFM was born in 2009. The mother and father were teens and lived with the father’s family during the mother’s pregnancy. After the baby was born, they moved out and lived together for a few months before breaking up. They created an informal agreement as to the child’s custody, rather than seeking the help of the court or getting a paternity order.

The mother later had a child with someone else. CPS became involved with the family, due to family violence, and the mother separated from that person, who completed a battering intervention and prevention program. The mother was later admitted to the hospital after ingesting up to 14 pills. A CPS caseworker concluded that the mother had tried to commit suicide. However, her doctor didn’t recommend that she get psychiatric treatment but only that she not mix liquor and pills.

The mother signed a CPS child safety and evaluation plan. This provided that both children would stay with the father, and the mother would have supervised visits. The mother complied with all of the orders. The father filed an action asking the court for sole managing conservatorship of the child. He asked that the mother’s visits be supervised.

Right to Designate a Child’s Primary Residence in Texas

Published on: August 23, 2016 | by Kelly McClure

In Philips v. Filla, a couple married in 2004 and divorced in 2007. They had one child. When they made their initial custody arrangement during the divorce proceedings, the mother had the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. In 2010, however, they agreed to modify the divorce terms and agreed that the father would have the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence.

In 2010, the mother told Child Protective Services that the father was abusing the child. While an investigation was pending, the court rendered the modified order according to the settlement agreement, giving the father the exclusive right to designate the child’s primary residence. CPS ruled out the mother’s allegations that the father had abused the child and also expressed that it had a reason to believe the mother was emotionally abusive by possibly coaching the child to make abuse allegations against the father and putting the child through many intrusive medical exams connected to the allegations.

The father petitioned to modify the earlier order and asked for temporary and permanent orders that the mother have only supervised visitation with the child. The wife counter-petitioned to modify the order, again alleging the father’s abuse and asking she be awarded the right to designate a primary residence for the child. The trial court ordered that her visitation with the child be supervised and ordered the mother to begin therapy and undergo a psychological evaluation.

Parents’ Agreement to Terminate a Mother’s Rights in Texas

Published on: July 15, 2016 | by Kelly McClure

In the 2016 Texas case In re Morris, an appellate court considered a father’s request for a writ of mandamus after the mother and he agreed to the rendition of an order terminating the mother-child relationship. The adjudicated father of the child asked the appellate court to compel the lower court to vacate its order, which refused to render judgment in accord with the parents’ agreement to terminate the parent-child relationship between the mother and the child. He also wanted the court to render judgment according to their mediated settlement agreement.

In 2004, the trial court named the father and mother of a child the joint managing conservators of the child. In 2014, the child’s mother signed an affidavit voluntarily relinquishing her parental rights. She claimed that the termination of her relationship with the child was in the child’s best interests, but she didn’t provide facts in support. The mother didn’t expressly state she relinquished her parental rights.

In 2015, the child’s father filed a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between the mother and child on the grounds that the mother had executed an irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights and that termination was in the child’s best interests.

LGBT Rights Still Likely to Remain an Issue after U.S. Supreme Court Decision

Published on: November 1, 2015 | by McClure Law Group

This past summer, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that under the U.S. Constitution, no state may forbid same-sex couples from marrying and that no state may refuse to accept the legality of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. This Supreme Court opinion, however, did not address issues regarding children of same-sex marriages/partnerships. As evidenced below, much work still remains to be done in this regard. Continue Reading ›

Interstate Child Custody Disputes and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

Published on: August 20, 2015 | by Bryce Hopson

Our society is rapidly changing—from technological advances, to medicinal breakthroughs, to the meteoric ascension of the multinational corporation, individuals and communities are forced to adapt to our culture’s fast-paced global expansion. While there are certainly many factors that have contributed to these changes, our ability to communicate instantly across thousands of miles and travel thousands of miles in a matter of hours has created a society less focused on the proverbial “home roots.”

When parties finalize their divorce or have an order issued relating to their children, what happens when one or both parents have their home roots pulled up by out-of-state job transfers, family issues that require relocation, or new opportunities that send one parent across state lines? Is the order issued in the first state enforceable by the parent who has moved to a different state? Can the traveling parent modify the prior order in another state, or are they stuck litigating in the courts of the state that issued the original order? What if both parents and the child no longer reside in the state that issued the original order?

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act was crafted to provide answers to these questions. Continue Reading ›

Special Provisions for Active Military Members under the Texas Family Code

Published on: May 1, 2015 | by Bryce Hopson

Are you currently serving in the military or know someone who is? Texas is home to one of the largest populations of active military members in the nation. As such, the Texas Family Code has specific statutes that address the unique issues facing our military members in the family law context.

For instance, what happens if you have primary custody of a child after a divorce and you are called overseas or ordered to military duty in another state? Texas Family Code § 153.701 states the following: Continue Reading ›

Should a Rapist Have the Right to Custody of a Child Conceived by Rape?

Published on: April 24, 2015 | by James ''JT'' Gage

Should a rapist have the right to custody of a child who was conceived by rape? The United States Senate recently answered—unanimously—“No!” to that very question when it passed an amendment to human trafficking legislation that would give states a strong incentive to ban rapists from having parental rights regarding a resulting child.

The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act passed the Senate 99-0 and targets a pressing problem: in 40 out of 50 states, a woman cannot sue to terminate the parental rights of her rapist. In those states, a rapist can sue for custody of a child conceived by the rape. That means that a woman could be forced to face her rapist “every other weekend” to exchange their child—an outcome that can have devastating traumatic results. Continue Reading ›

Congratulations on the birth of your baby boy! Now what?

Published on: April 1, 2015 | by McClure Law Group

For the parents of a brand new baby boy, oftentimes the first medical decision to be made for the child is whether he should be circumcised. This medical procedure is usually performed in the hospital shortly after the birth of the child and outside the presence of the parents, or in the Jewish faith, eight days after the birth of the baby boy, which is part of the brit milah (a.k.a. bris) ritual. But what happens when the parents do not agree on whether their baby should be circumcised? What legal recourse do the parents have in Texas? The answer is not an easy one.

In Texas, parents can legally resolve their disputes in a “Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship” (“SAPCR”) wherein the Court is asked to appoint the parents with certain rights, powers, and duties over their child. The problem in the case of circumcision, however, is that a SAPCR may not be filed for an unborn child. Therefore, if a parent has a strong objection to circumcision, then he or she must wait until after the child is born to prevent an unwanted circumcision and then act quickly. Assuming that the medical professionals will not perform the procedure against one parent’s clear objection, the objecting parent will need to file a SAPCR immediately and request a Temporary Restraining Order to prohibit the non-objecting party from consenting to the circumcision until the Court cannot decide the matter after notice and hearing.