Court Opinion

ID: 9391153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 09:08:53.022953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.758657
License: Public Domain

In the
          Court of Appeals
  Second Appellate District of Texas
           at Fort Worth
        ___________________________
             No. 02-22-00189-CV
        ___________________________

     IN THE INTEREST OF S.W., A CHILD

     On Appeal from the 360th District Court
             Tarrant County, Texas
         Trial Court No. 360-677800-20

Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell
                  CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION

       I concur with the majority in affirming the trial court’s judgment granting Little

Flower’s motion for summary judgment. I write separately to provide additional facts

relating to Father’s first subissue on fraud.

       Father argues that he has a “meritorious defense in that but for the intentional

collusion to commit fraud between [Little Flower] and [Mother], [Father] would have

been able to register with the paternity registry and/or intervene in the underlying

termination proceedings so that he could have asserted his parental rights in the

required statutory timeframe.” The majority, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to Father’s position, held that there is no evidence in this record that

Mother and Little Flower defrauded Father in any way preventing him from

registering with the paternity registry. While I agree with the majority’s conclusion, I

write separately to further establish that there was no fraud upon the trial court or

upon Father.

       First, Father seems to suggest that Mother and Little Flower committed a fraud

upon the trial court by representing to the trial court that the biological father was

unknown. Indeed, in our opinion in Mother and Father’s restricted appeal from the

default judgment of termination, we stated categorically, but incorrectly, that the

petition for termination filed by Little Flower “alleged that S.W.’s biological father

was unknown[.]” In re S.W., 614 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020, no

pet.). Although it is undisputed that Mother and Little Flower knew the identity of

                                                2
Father, the clerk’s record in the restricted appeal does not show that Mother and

Little Flower affirmatively represented to the trial court that the biological father was

unknown. See In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 614 S.W.3d 316, 336 & n.9 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2020, orig. proceeding) (holding a court of appeals may take

judicial notice of the original record, including the briefing, in previous appellate

proceedings).

      On October 9, 2019, Little Flower’s original petition for termination stated:

             No man has, to the best of Petitioner’s information and belief,
      taken steps to legitimate the child in the manner provided by law. No
      legal parent-child relationship exists between the child’s biological father
      and the child. It is in the child’s best interest that the Court render
      judgment declaring that no legal parent-child relationship exists between
      the child and the child’s biological father. It is in the child’s best interest
      that the Court render judgment terminating all legal relationships and
      rights which exist or may exist between the child and the child’s
      biological father. Such termination is sought.

      ...

             As grounds for termination, Petitioner alleges that the biological
      father has not or will not, within the time prescribed by law, registered
      with the paternity registry under Chapter 160 of the Texas Family Code.

Moreover, Mother stated in her affidavit of relinquishment—executed the day before

and attached to Little Flower’s petition—that S.W. “has no presumed father under the

Texas Family Code.” In Mother’s contemporaneously executed and similarly attached

affidavit of nonsupport she further stated:

             The biological father has not established a financial or custodial
      relationship with the child. I was not married to nor did I attempt to

                                              3
       marry any man at the time of conception or during my pregnancy.
       Paternity of the child has not been established under the laws of any
       state or nation. I have not deliberately misled any man who could be the
       father of my child by telling him that I am parenting the child, I was not
       pregnant, I miscarried the baby, I aborted the baby, or the baby died.
       The child has no presumed father under the Texas Family Code. The
       child was conceived in the State of Texas.

Finally, the certificate of paternity registry search, conducted and filed by Little Flower

on November 7, 2019, certified that no one purporting to be the child’s father had

registered.

       Accordingly, neither Mother nor Little Flower affirmatively represented to the

trial court that the biological father was unknown, but rather only represented that

there was no presumed father, that no parent–child relationship existed between S.W

and the biological father, and that no man had registered with the paternity registry or

had taken legal steps to legitimate the child. The record simply does not support a

finding that there was a fraud upon the trial court by misrepresenting to the trial court

that the biological father was unknown. And the paternity registry provided Father

with the means of asserting his rights without depending on Mother, the courts, or

anyone else to identify him. In re Baby Girl S., 407 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2013, pet. denied).

       Next, Father contends that Mother and Little Flower colluded to prevent him

from learning of S.W.’s birth. Father represents that he did not learn of S.W.’s birth

until December 7, 2019; however, as acknowledged by the majority, there is evidence

to the contrary. When considered in their entirety, the text messages that Father

                                            4
unqualifiedly urges as evidence of Mother and Little Flower’s alleged fraud show that

Father was aware of S.W.’s birth well before December 7, 2019, and likely within the

statutory timeframe for asserting his rights through the registry.

      On October 6, 2019, the day after S.W.’s birth, the following text message

exchange occurred between Mother and an employee of Little Flower:

             Little Flower: Did you want them to come down or no?

             Mother: Yes . . . . I’m down the hall from them

             Little Flower: Ok
                     Is 11:00 ok for me to come tomorrow to chat and get
             started on the paperwork? I figure you might want to sleep in a
             little

             Mother: That’s fine

             ...

             Little Flower: Also what name did you put on the birth certificate?
             First middle and last? You can put your last name if you haven’t
             filled out already

             Mother: I’m actually hoping [adoptive mother] comes back down
             to talk about the last name
             I want to hyphenate the last name if she’s ok with that
             They will be back they went to eat
             Also, I want to have [S.W.] with me today, since I might be
             leaving tomorrow

             Little Flower: Ok. Just so you know. There’s an original birth
             certificate with the name you give her at the hospital and then a
             new one at 6 months so you are able to put whatever first middle
             and last name you want which will be her “original” name so if
             you want your last name alone you can. Up to you. Just let me
             know tonight some time so I can put on the paperwork.

                                            5
                    Also leave the father info blank otherwise he has to sign
              paperwork and it slows things down

This text exchange supports the reasonable inference Father urges that not only did

Mother know him to be S.W.’s biological father, she also provided that information to

Little Flower before the filing of its petition for termination.

       On October 15, 2019, there was another text message exchange between

Mother and the owner of Little Flower:

       Mother: Good Morning. I don’t know if [Little Flower employee] shared
       with you our recent exchange. I have notified numerous times from the
       fathers family and they are threatening to have him petition his rights.
       With that being said I have a huge issue with the possibility of [Father]
       getting custody of [S.W.]
              I don’t believe they are fit to take care of her one & im only
       comfortable with [S.W.] being with [adoptive parents]. If she doesn’t go
       there than I have ever intention on fighting for my child.

       Little Flower: Hi! Yes [Little Flower employee] told me what was going
       on. At this point I think we should just sit and wait. We are moving
       forward with everything and we should just try to not engage with them
       too much. If they got an attorney, they would have to serve you with
       their legal notices and we would need to know about that asap. Do you
       think they are just trying to bother you about it? And not really going to
       organize themselves to do something official?

       Mother: Honesty I’m not sure . . . . But I don’t want to take any chances.
            Anything is possible. I just need the plan should I be served

       Little Flower: Tell me about the bio father – is he capable of obtaining
       an attorney and filing something? Or are they likely sort of bluffing?

       Mother: [Father] makes compound pharmaceuticals for cancer patients
       and he’s out the military now, at times he can be inconsistent and
       stubborn but 9 times out of 10 if his mother says something he does it.
       His mother has a huge influence of him and so does his aunt. I’m not
       sure what he does with his money b [sic]

                                             6
             His mother is manipulative.
             His aunt is not capable of having kids so she wants [S.W.] the most

      Mother alleged in her Bill of Review that on October 7, 2019, she was having

misgivings about the adoption and that she was in a precarious physical and mental

health condition. She claimed she was “badgered” to sign the affidavit of

relinquishment. This text message exchange, however, does not reflect any misgivings

on the part of Mother fully a week after the filing of the petition. Presumably

recovered from her post-delivery complications, Mother was concerned with

preventing Father or his family from obtaining custody of S.W.

      Evidencing his mother and aunt’s knowledge of Father’s paternity, a reasonable

inference from the text message exchange is that Father was aware of S.W.’s birth no

later than October 15, 2019. First, it is improbable that Father’s family was aware of

S.W.’s birth on October 15, but Father was not. Second, because Father was the only

one who could assert his rights, the text messages provide evidence that Father knew

of S.W.’s birth well before December 7, 2019, and likely within the statutory

timeframe for asserting his rights through the registry.

      Father argues that Mother and Little Flower were aware of his identity and

concealed the information from both the trial court and from Father. As in Baby Girl

S., the evidence demonstrates that Father had reason to believe that Mother could be

pregnant and, despite having this information, failed to take any steps to register his

intent to claim paternity to S.W. in a timely manner. 407 S.W.3d at 915.

                                            7
       With the above additional facts demonstrating that there was no fraud on the

trial court and no fraud preventing Father from asserting his parental rights, I agree

with the majority holding that there is no evidence in this record that Mother and

Little Flower defrauded Father in any way preventing him from timely registering with

the paternity registry.

                                                    /s/ Wade Birdwell

                                                    Wade Birdwell
                                                    Justice

Delivered: April 27, 2023

                                          8