Court Opinion

ID: 9822555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:10:34.535009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:39.050187
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-22-00147-CV

      IN THE INTEREST OF TIFFANY FORNS, AN ADULT CHILD

                           From the 66th District Court
                                Hill County, Texas
                           Trial Court No. CV335-21DC

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant Tiffany Forns challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion for

genetic testing, which she filed within the context of her suit for adjudication of

parentage. See generally TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 160.601–.637. Because we find no

appealable order or judgment in the record, we will dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

                                      Background

       Tiffany was born in June of 1982 to Karen Morales. Her birth certificate lists her

father as Tommy Todd Hagar, who had divorced Karen in October of the previous year.

Karen now claims she knew at the time that Tommy was not Tiffany’s biological father
and only listed him as the father because her own mother instructed her to do so.

Because Tiffany was born within 301 days of the divorce, Tommy is presumed to be her

father unless adjudicated otherwise by a court. See id. §§ 160.204(a)(2), .607(b)(1). At

some point following her separation from Tommy, Karen began living with Don

Vaughn. Several years following Tiffany’s birth, Karen and Don contacted Tommy,

who was apparently unaware that Karen was ever pregnant, and asked him to allow

Don to adopt Tiffany. 1 Tiffany never lived with Tommy and, according to testimony

presented at trial, believed Don was her biological father until high school, when she

learned that her mother had been in a relationship with Monty Pueschel around the

presumed time of Tiffany’s conception.

           Sometime between 2018 and 2020—at trial, witnesses were uncertain of the

date—Tommy completed an over-the-counter genetic test at Tiffany’s request. Tiffany

offered those results as an exhibit at trial, but that evidence was deemed inadmissible

by the trial court. No one denies that Tommy took the test and that he and Tiffany

obtained the results, nor does anyone challenge the evidentiary ruling.

           In June of 2021, Tiffany sued Monty for an adjudication of parentage and

subsequently amended her petition to add Karen as a second respondent; neither

Tommy nor Don was party to the proceedings. Embedded within both the original and

amended petitions for relief is a request for genetic testing. The governing statute

1
    Based on the record, it appears that Don and Karen never completed the adoption. Don was not party to the suit.
In re Forns                                                                                                   Page 2
requires the trial court to order such testing, see id. § 160.502(a), unless the trial court

makes certain findings by clear and convincing evidence and considers the best interest

of the child, see id. § 160.608(a)–(d).

        Monty responded to Tiffany’s suit by challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the

petition and arguing, in the alternative, that the statutory factors governing the denial

of a motion for genetic testing, see id. §160.608(b), weigh in favor of denying Tiffany’s

motion. After a series of additional motions and continuances not relevant here, Tiffany

filed an amended petition. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which Tiffany,

Karen, Tommy, and Monty each testified. Don did not testify. The trial court issued a

letter ruling outlining its reasoning before issuing a one-line order that denied the

motion but did not determine parentage, see id. § 160.608(e) (requiring trial court, upon

denial of such motion, “to issue an order adjudicating the presumed father to be the

father of the child”). Tiffany requested findings of fact and conclusions of law, which

the trial court prepared and filed. Tiffany timely perfected this appeal.

                                          Issues on Appeal

        On appeal, Tiffany argues that the trial court “abused its discretion in denying

[her] motion for genetic testing”; that the trial court’s denial of the motion for genetic

testing “should be considered a final order rather than an interlocutory order”; and that

her petition and appeal present a “justiciable issue,” notwithstanding the facts that she

has reached the age of majority, is not otherwise eligible for any support, and that

In re Forns                                                                           Page 3
Monty’s testimony that adjudication of parentage will not change the devisees listed in

his will. Monty offers counterarguments to each of Tiffany’s points; he also asks this

Court to remand for an award of attorney’s fees. Because it is dispositive of this appeal,

we will address only Tiffany’s second argument. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

AUTHORITY

        The Texas Constitution imbues the courts of appeals with jurisdiction “as

prescribed by law.” Tex. Const. art. V, sec. 6(a). It is now well settled that this court’s

jurisdiction extends only to appeals from final judgments and interlocutory orders

made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001);

see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (delineating permissible appeals

from interlocutory orders); TEX. R. CIV. P. 301 (“Only one final judgment shall be

rendered in any cause except where it is otherwise specifically provided by law.”).

Jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time on appeal or

questioned by the appellate court sua sponte. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd.,

852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993).

DISCUSSION

        Monty asks us “to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.”                                  Tiffany,

meanwhile, asks this Court to construe the one-line order as a final judgment 2 and reach

the merits of the denial, arguing that “[t]he denial of genetic testing disposes of [her]
2
 She does not argue that the order is an interlocutory order made appealable by statute, and we are aware of no
authority characterizing an order like the one at issue here as such.

In re Forns                                                                                                  Page 4
claim[,] as the court cannot affirm or deny [Monty] as the biological father without

genetic testing, and genetic testing in this cause is an appealable order.” She continues,

“Without the ability to appeal the denial of genetic testing in this case, the [trial court]

may be forced to enter an order adjudicating a presumed father [i.e., Tommy] who was

fraudulently placed on the birth certificate,” because “[i]f a trial court denies a motion

for genetic testing, the trial court shall issue an order adjudicating the presumed father

to be the father of the child.” (quoting TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.608(e)).

        Section 105.006 of the Family Code delineates the necessary components of a

final order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The section applies to this

suit. See id. § 105.006(a) (referring to any final order “other than in a proceeding under

Chapter 161 or 162”).     Yet few, if any, of the required elements is present in the

challenged order.

        The governing case on section 105.006 finality, In re R.R.K., 590 S.W.3d 535 (Tex.

2019), holds that the absence of one or more of those elements from the challenged

order is “not fatal” to finality. In that case, there was disagreement among the parties

as to which of a series of orders served as the final order for the purposes of appeal.

The high court explained:

        The trial court’s memorandum lacks many of section 105.006’s
        requirements for final orders and contains none of the statutorily-required
        warnings and advisories. The courts of appeals have differed in their
        consideration of the effect of compliance with section 105.006 on finality,
        with some holding that section 105.006 plays no role in determining
In re Forns                                                                           Page 5
          finality and others viewing lack of compliance as part of the overall
          finality analysis. We agree with the latter approach. While a missing
          required element does not conclusively negate finality, a failure to include
          multiple required elements suggests ambiguity as to the trial court’s
          intent. In this case, that ambiguity is not otherwise resolved on the face of
          the memorandum because it lacks language that it finally disposes of all
          claims and parties and is appealable.

          A failure to comply with every aspect of section 105.006 is not fatal to
          finality. But when finality is contested, and the order lacks required
          statutory elements, a reviewing court should examine the record to
          determine finality under Lehmann and its progeny. Absent “clear and
          unequivocal” language that the memorandum disposes of all claims and
          all parties and is appealable, omissions of elements required by section
          105.006 raise doubt about an order’s finality.

          ...

          Because the memorandum order in this case does not contain “clear,”
          “unequivocal,” and “unmistakable” indicia of finality, removing “any
          doubt” about its effect, we examine the record to determine the trial
          court’s intent.

          ...

          We hold that an order lacking the unmistakable language of finality—that
          it resolves all claims between and among all parties and is final and
          appealable—is ambiguous in a suit under the Family Code when the
          order does not comport with the statute governing final orders and is
          otherwise inconclusive as to its intent. If a judicial decree’s finality is
          ambiguous, a reviewing court should examine the record to determine the
          trial court’s intent.

Id. at 542–44 (emphasis added and all footnotes omitted).

          The R.R.K. court went on to explain that the series of draft orders and

communications left no doubt as to which order the trial court intended as final. See id.

at 544.
In re Forns                                                                               Page 6
        Here, the trial court omitted elements of finality required by section 105.006 of

the Family Code. In addition, Chapter 160 requires that a trial court denying a motion

for genetic testing issue an order declaring a presumed father—in this case Tommy—to

be the father of the subject child, see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 160.608(e), which the trial

court has not done. Instead, the trial court’s conclusions of law expressly state that

Tommy is not Tiffany’s father. The trial court’s letter ruling indicates that Tiffany has

identified no “justiciable controversy” and that the courts can afford Tiffany no relief,

seemingly suggesting finality. Yet nothing in the order, the letter ruling, or the findings

and conclusions satisfies Lehmann’s standards of “clear and unequivocal“ language of

finality. And none of the trial court’s comments from the bench, which were limited,

offers any insight as to the trial court’s intent.

        In sum, the order Tiffany challenges on appeal is simply an order denying her

motion for genetic testing. Under governing standards, it has none of the hallmarks of a

final order or judgment. We therefore must dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

without reaching the merits of any other arguments raised. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at

196 (“An appeal from such a [non-final] judgment must be dismissed or at least abated,

resulting in delay and a waste of the courts’ and the parties' resources.”); TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a), 43.2. Accordingly, we express no opinion as to whether Tiffany’s suit was

timely filed and offer no comment on the trial court’s analysis or disposition of the

motion.

In re Forns                                                                           Page 7
                                       Conclusion

        We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

                                                 MATT JOHNSON
                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Smith, and
       Justice Johnson
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2023
[CV06]

In re Forns                                                     Page 8