Court Opinion

ID: 9659872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:56:37.484876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.301588
License: Public Domain

LOPEZ, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority that there is sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights, I disagree that venue is proper in Kerr County and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.
The majority finds that the parents of the subject children waived venue in Bexar County. In a matter as important as whether parental rights are to be terminated, it is absolutely essential that parents be fully and completely informed of their legal rights. In this case, the parents of the children were not notified that the question of venue would be addressed at the hearing on the Department’s emergency order until the attorney for the Department made an oral motion to change venue. Further, the parents were unrepresented and were given an explanation of what was about to transpire as to venue by the Department’s attorney in a few sentences during the hearing. After the explanation of whether the parties would agree that the ease be transferred to Kerr County, the trial judge stated that because the Kerr County District Court was the court of continuing jurisdiction, venue would be transferred there. The basis for the judge’s statement as to continuing jurisdiction was that there had been a previous termination case as to the parents’ oldest child in Kerr County. However, that case had been fully adjudicated and had no connection to the case before the court in Bexar County.
Because the parents did not receive prior notice of the Department’s intention to request a change of venue, and because there was no court of continuing jurisdiction, the change of venue to Kerr County was improper. I would reverse and remand this ease to the trial court for a proper determination of venue.