### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00716- CV
Hyd i Wa ll, App e lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. FM 3072 44, H ONO RAB LE JOH N K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N On Aug ust 25, 2005, this Court issued an opinion abating Hy di Wall’s appeal fr om a judg ment terminating the parent-child re lationship with her children W.C.C. and T.C. beca use the district court failed t o hold a mandator y hear ing on Wall’s motion for new trial. See W

all v. Texas De p’ t of Fa mi ly &Pr ote c tiv e Se rv

s. , 173 S.W .3d 178,183-84 (T ex . App.—Austin 2005, no pet.). I n that opinion we overruled a ll of Wall’s other issues but permitted her to file supple mental brief ing reg ardingany

issues relatingto the hear ing on he r motion for newtrial. Se e id
. a t 18 3. Pur su ant t o
our direc tion, the district c ourt held a hear ing on Wall’s motion for new trial, and Wall now raises two issues in a supplemental brie f. Wall contends that t h e s t at u t e g overningthe voluntary2

relinquishment of par ental righ t s t o t he De partment is unconstitutional and that the district court abused its discretion in denying he r motion for new trial. Be cause Wall failed to establish that the relinquishment of her pare ntal rig hts was involuntary and bec ause she has wa ived her constitutional
argume nts , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt of the dis tr ic t c ourt se ve ri ng the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip wi th W.C. C. a nd T. C.
Constitutional Ch allenge

I n h e r f ir st i ssu e , Wa ll cont end s th a t se c tio n 1 61 .1 03 (e ) o f t he fa mil y c od e is
un c on sti tut ion a l. S e c tio n 1 61 .1 03 (e ) s ta te s th at th e re lin qu ish me nt o f p are nta l r ig hts in a n a ff ida vit that desig nates the D epar tment as manag ing c onservator i s irrevoc able. Te x . Fam. Code Ann. § 1 61 .1 03 (e ) ( Wes t Su

pp . 2 00 5) . U nd e r t

his statut e, a re lin qu ish me nt i n a ny oth e r a ff ida vit is g ener ally revoka ble and may

provide that it is irrevoc able only for a stated period of no more than six ty day s. Id
. Wal l c on te nd s th a t th is s ta tut or y pr ov isi on

is i nc on sis te nt w iththe c on sti tut ion a lly
r e c o g n iz e d b o n d b e tw e e n p ar e n t an d c h il d
. See Ho lic k v . S mi th , 685 S.W .2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985). Ho we ve r, Wal l di d n ot r a ise thi s c on sti tut ion a l is su e in th e di str ic t c ourt or in h e r p ri or

a pp e llate brief. G e n e r a ll y , a p arty ma y n o t r a is e an is s u e , e v e n a c o n s ti tuti o n a l c la im , f o r th e f irst time on
a pp e a l. Car

riz ale s v . Te x as De p’ t of Pr ote c tiv e & Reg ul ato ry Se rv s. , 5 S. W. 3 d

9 2 2 , 9 2 5 ( T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 99 , p e t. d e nie d) ; see also In reL.M.I. , 119 S.W .3d 707, 710-11 (Tex . 2003) (due proce ss c la im

in p ar e n ta l r ig h ts te r

mi n a ti o nw a iv e d

w h e nr a is e d

f o r th e f ir s t t im e o na

p p e a l)
. Be cause Wall raised her

constitutional claim for first time in her supplemental appellate brief, she has wa ived this issue.3

Vo lunt ar ine ss o f Re linqu ishm e nt

I n her se cond issue, Wall contends that she e stablished by a p re pondera

nce of the evidenc e that her aff

idavit of relinquishm ent was executed as a result of coercion, f raud, de ception, undue influenc e or ove rre achingand, ther efor e, the district cour t err ed by overr uling he r motion for new tria l. See V

ela v. M arywood , 17 S.W .3d 750, 759 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, pet. denied) (involuntarily

executed af

fidavit complete de fense t o t ermination base d on that aff idavit); Neal v. Te x as De p’ t of Hu ma n S e rv s. , 814 S.W .2d 216, 219 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1991, writ denied)
. Specifica lly , Wall point s to evidenc e that (1) he r attorne y had bee n only

rec ently appointed and ( 2) she wa s told she could not win at t rial and that her preg nancy would be used a g ainst her. The rec ord sh ow s th a t Wall wa s als o told that an inv olu nta ry te rm inatio n of the pa

re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip wi th W.C. C. a nd T. C. w ou ld b e g ro un ds on wh ic h th e De pa

rtme nt c ou ld t e rmin a te the pa re nt- c hil d relationship wit h her unbor n child. See Tex. F am. Code Ann. § 161.001(1) (M) (West Supp. 2005). Whe n th e De pa

rtme nt s e e ks to t e rm inate the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio nship on the ba sis of an irr evoca

ble af fidavit of relinquishment, it must establish by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the af fidavit was e x ecute d acc ording to the terms of sec tion 161.103 of the family code. Ve la , 17 S.W .3d at 758. Once this showing has be en made by the Department, t he affidavit m ay be set a side only upon proof by the par ent, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that the a ffidavit wa s executed
as a r es u l t o f coer cion, dure ss, fraud, de ception, or undue influence
. Id .; see also Brown v. Mc Le nn an Cou nty

Chi ldr e n’

s P ro te c tiv e Se rv

s. , 627 S.W .2d 390, 394 (Tex. 1982). Wal l r e lie s p ri mari ly

on he r ow n te sti mony a t the he ari ng on the mot ion

fo r n e w tri a l. At that hear ing, she testified about the events of t he mediation at which she sig ned the a ffidavit ofAttorney J ohn Hindera testified that he participated in the mediation for se vera l hours and 1 that he a dv ise d Wa ll n ot t o s ig n th e a ff ida vit of re lin qu ish me nt. 4 relinquishment. She explained that s h e was e ight months preg nant at the time and that she was fatig ued, hung ry

and fe eling sick by

the t ime she si g ned the aff idavit. She testified that she sig ned the af fidavit bec ause she had bee n told that she would lose if she we nt to t ri al and that, if she
re lin qu ish e d h e r r ig hts to W. C.C . a nd T. C., the De pa

rtme nt “w ou ld be ou t of

my lif e and the y wo uld have . . . no r eason w hatsoeve r t o come into my life wit h my y oung est.” F urther, she testified that the Depa rtment promised to place W.C .C. and T.C. w ith one of two persons that she ha d named a s possible adoptive place ments. Wall testified that she did not r eally understand the documents that she sig ned but sig ned them beca use “I was ti red and Iwanted to hur ry up and g o to the house.” L ater that evening , she contac ted her attorney and expressed her desire to r evoke the re linquishm ent of he r pare ntal rig hts. The following day , Wall si g ned af fidavits attempting to r evoke the relinquishment of her pare ntal rig hts and the rule 11 a g ree ment. The De partment e stablished at the hea ring on the motion f

or new trial that Wall was repr esente d by an attorney throug hout the mediation. For sever al hours Wall was beingadvised by two attorney s. Participants in the mediation testified that Wall appear ed hea lthy . Child P rotec tive

1 Service s Supervisor Anna War de testified that Wall seeme d “cle ar he aded . . . . [I ]t seeme d like her focus wa s on her ne w unborn c hild . . . like she was trying to move on w i th her life.” The Depa rtment’s witnesses de nied making any promises to Wall t hat wer e not re flec ted in the rule 11 ag ree ment. Specifica lly , they denied telling Wall that the Depar tment w ould not become involved with her unborn c hild. Mediator Paula James testified that she l ikely told W all that an involuntaryTestimony at t he hearing ref lects t hat W all provided the mediator with the names of two 2 pe rs on s w ho we re c on ta c te d dur ing the me diatio n. Ho we ve r, the se name s we re ne ve r f or wa rd e d to the De pa rtme nt b y the me diator

or Wal l’ s c ouns e l.

5 te rm inatio n o f r ig hts to W. C.C . a nd T. C. c ou ld b e statut or

y g ro un ds to t e rm inate the parent-c hil d
re la tio ns hip wi th Wal l’ s un bo rn c hil d; Jame s d e nie d th a t Wa ll w a s to ld t hat “ the de pa

rtme nt w ou ld definitely take a way her ne wborn ba

by once it wa s born.” There was a lso a dispute as to whethe r the De partment ha d fulfilled the pr o m i ses made in the r

ule 11 ag ree ment signe d by the par ties. Pursuant to the ag ree ment, Wall s igne d the ir re vo c a ble a ff ida vit of re lin qu ish me nt i n e xch ang e fo r p ro mis e s b y the De pa rtme nt to a llo w Wa ll to c on tin ue vis itatio n with the c hil dr e n an d to pla c e W.C. C. an d T.C. wi th p e rs on s n a me d b y Wal l if those per sons were found qualified by the Depa

rtment’s hom e s t u d y . Wall allege d that the promised visitation did not oc cur and that the Depa rtment did not investigate persons she ide ntified as potential adoptive pa

rents. Howe ver, w i t n es s es attributed the lac k of visitation to scheduling problems. Fur

thermore , it appear s from the rec ord t hat W all never submitt ed any

names of pote ntial
a do pti ve pa

re nts to t he De pa rtme nt i n a c c or da

nc e wi th t he a g re e me nt. 2 On thi s re c or d, g ivi ng a

pp ro pr ia te de fe re nc e to the tr ie r of fa c t, we ho ld that W all failed to establish by a prepondera nce of the evidence that her relinquishment of par ental rig hts was obtained throug h coer cion, duress, fra ud, dece ption, or undue influence . Her testimony

reg arding pr omi se s ma de by

the De pa rtme nt w a s d ir e c tly

c on tr a dic te d b y

oth e r w itn e sse s. I mpo rt antl y , Wa ll
was re prese nted by

counsel at the time she signe d the aff idavit of relinquishment. The district cour t explained:6

Idid some rese arc h over the brea k also, and one of the thing s that seems important . . . is whether or

not the pare nt signing the re linquishm ent was r epre sented by an attorney . So it beg s the questi on, since she w as—Ms. Wall was in fac t repre sented by an attorne y

the entire time, it’s hard t o imag ine a coer cive sit uation when she has one and at times during the me diation two lawy ers prese nt f or counse l, and advice , and prote ction from such undue influence s as y ou alleg e occ urre d in this case.
I ndeed, c ourts routinely reje ct claims that a relinquishment of parental rig hts was involuntary when the par ty was re prese nted by

an attorne y

at the time the af

fidavit was sig ned. Se e In re N.P .T. , 169 S.W. 3d 67 7, 68 1 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 20 05 , pet. den ie d) ; In re D.R .L.M. , 84 S.W .3d 281, 298-99 ( T e x. A p p . — F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 2 , p e t
. d e n ie d) ; L umbis v . Te x as De p’ t of Pr ote c tiv e & Re

gu lator y Se rv s. , 6 5 S. W.3 d 8 44 , 8 50 (T e x. Ap p. —Aus ti n 20 02 , pe t. d e nie d) ; Heiser v . Texas De p’t of Pr ote c tiv e & Re

gu lator ySe rv s. , N o . 0 3
- 0 3
- 0 0 0 9 8
- CV , 2 0 0 2 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 7 0 1 8 , * 1 1
- * 1 4 ( T e x. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (me m. op.). Moreove r, Wall has not challeng ed the e ffe ctiveness of counsel in protec ting he r intere sts at the mediation.

Th e re c an b e no do ub t tha t a med ia tio n in whic h a pa re nt i s a sk e d to sig n a

n a ff ida vit fore ver te rminating her r elationship with her childr en i s an ex tremely stressful eve nt. This was
exacer bated by the fa ct that Wal l wa s fac ed with the unsavor y dilemma of choosingbetwee n voluntarily

relinquishing he r rig ht s t o W
. C .C. and T.C., and risking trial and the e stablishment of
new g rounds to te rminate the pare nt-child relationship with her unbor n child. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)( M). B ut these ar e inher ent pre ssures in the proc ess and do not alone establish that Wall’s actions were involuntary
. Se e In re N.P .T. , 1 6 9 S.W .3d at 681 (“ being fac ed with an
u n f a v o r a b l e j u r y d e c i s i o nd o e s n ot au to mat ical ly war rant a finding that the af

fidavit of rel inq uis hme nt w a s w ro ng fu lly pr oc ur e d. ” ). Wal l w a s r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l and

arr ive d at a7

barg ained- for a g ree ment with the Depa rtment. The voluntariness of Wall’s assent to the ag ree ment is a lso not implicated by scheduling problems in visitation or Wall’s f ailure to take adva

ntag e of the ag ree ment by

providing names of pote n t i al ad o p t ive par ents to the Depa rtment. Acc ording ly , we ho ld tha t Wa l l f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h b y a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e t h a ts h e d i d n o tv o l u n t ari ly execute her

aff idavit of relinquishment. We overr ule Wall’s second issue. Havingoverr

ule d b o th o f Wa ll ’ s issues, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde r over ruling Wal l’ s mot ion fo r n e w tri a l and the jud g me nt t e rm inatin g the pa re nt- c hil d r e la tio ns hip wi th W. C.C
. and T.C.

Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: June 2, 2006