Opinion ID: 2831425
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Formalities

Text: Under the Family Code, a trial court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child and that the parent has executed a valid, irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights. See TEX . FAM . CODE § 161.001(1)(K), (2). Section 161.103 of the Family Code provides a litany of requirements that must be met for the affidavit of voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to form the basis for termination of the parent-child relationship under section 161.001(1)(K). See generally id. § 161.103. Notably, the affidavit must be witnessed by two credible persons and verified before a person authorized to take oaths. Id. § 161.103(a). Melissa argues that her affidavit of voluntary relinquishment is deficient because it does not include a verification—that is, it does not include a statement by Melissa that she swears to the truth of the document’s contents. Melissa points out that the relinquishment affidavit form promulgated by the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Texas includes such language, while the DFPS of San Jacinto County, Texas, used a form that does not include such language. DFPS, on the other hand, argues that a verification is not required because the requirement that the affidavit be “verified” is different from a requirement that it include a “verification.” Alternatively, DFPS argues that the affidavit was verified, as the affidavit stated, “Melissa . . . , known to me to be the person whose signature appears below, appeared in person before me and being by me duly sworn, in the presence of the undersigned credible witnesses, stated under oath . . . .” Texas Government Code section 312.011 defines “affidavit” as “a statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths, and officially certified to by the officer under his seal of office.” TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 312.011(1). 8 Additionally, section 312.011 defines “swear” or “sworn” to include “affirm,” and defines “oath” to include “affirmation.” Id. § 312.011(8), (16). However, section 312.011 does not define “verify”—the key word at the center of this dispute. See generally id. § 312.011. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “verification” as “(1) [a] formal declaration made in the presence of an authorized officer, such as a notary public . . . ; whereby one swears to the truth of the statements in the document [or]; (2) [a]n oath or affirmation that an authorized officer administers to an affiant or deponent.” BLACK ’S LAW DICTIONARY 1793 (10th ed. 2009). Black’s also provides a separate definition for “verify” as “(1) [t]o prove to be true; to confirm or establish the truth or truthfulness of; to authenticate; [or] (2) [t]o confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit; to swear to the truth of.” Id. DFPS attempts to draw a meaningful distinction between these two terms, arguing that the Family Code requires only that the affidavit be verified (substantiated by oath or affidavit) and does not require a verification (a formal declaration by which one swears to the truth of the statements in the document). However, this is a distinction without difference. Many of our rules of procedure require court documents to be “verified,” without using the noun form of the word—“verification.” See, e.g., TEX . R. CIV . P. 93, 165a, 680, 682. Even the Legislature interchanges the terminology elsewhere in the Family Code. For instance, section 31.002, providing for suit for removal of disabilities of minority, is captioned “Requisites of Petition; Verification,” yet the text uses “verify” and “verified.” TEX . FAM . CODE § 31.002(b). Any difference between “verified” and “verification” is merely a matter of semantics. Family Code section 161.103(a)(3) clearly states that the affidavit for voluntary relinquishment of parental rights must be “verified before a person authorized to take oaths.” TEX . FAM . CODE § 161.103(a)(3). As we interpret statutes with the fair assumption that the 9 Legislature intends the words it chooses, Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Sys., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 864, 886 (Tex. 1999), applying the words as they are written, Lee v. City of Houst., 807 S.W.2d 290, 293 (Tex. 1991), we must determine whether the affidavit here was verified—that is, whether it included a verification. Melissa argues that the language in the affidavit that the statements are made “under oath” cannot constitute a verification, because an affidavit, by definition, is a statement made under oath, citing Government Code section 312.011(1). Melissa’s argument fails, however, because the plain language of section 312.011(1) does not state, as she argues, that an “affidavit” is a statement made “under oath.” See TEX . GOV ’T CODE § 312.011(1). Section 312.011(1) defines affidavit as a statement “sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths.” Id. “Under oath” connotes more than simply “sworn to,” as Black’s Law Dictionary notes that “[t]he person making the oath implicitly invites punishment if the statement is untrue or the promise [to tell the truth] is broken.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1239 (10th ed. 2009). While we have not addressed this issue in the context of relinquishment of parental rights, and nor have any of our courts of appeals, we can turn for guidance to case law interpreting other statutes and rules of procedure requiring court documents to be verified. Noticeably absent from this Court’s case law, however, is a definition of “verified.” For example, we have considered documents under Rule 165a(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a case dismissed for want of prosecution shall be reinstated if a motion to reinstate, which sets forth the grounds for reinstatement and is verified by the movant or his attorney, is filed with the clerk within 10 thirty days of dismissal.9 In addressing Rule 165, we have either simply stated that the party filed an unverified motion or held that the motion, supported by an affidavit from counsel, was, in fact,