Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re D.R.O.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District

April 17, 2019

IN THE INTEREST OF D.R.O., A CHILD

          From the 378th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 96970D

          Before Chief Justice Gray, [*] Justice Davis, and Justice Neill

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          REX D. DAVIS JUSTICE.

         In three issues, Appellants Monica Kincaid Herrera and Adam Mitchell Herrera appeal the trial court's dismissal of their petition for termination of the parental rights of Deserae Nicole Williams[1] and Michael Laroy Ortega to D.R.O., that was joined with a petition for adoption. We will affirm.

         Issues

         The Herreras present the following issues:

Issue 1: Did the Trial Court err in converting a hearing for Temporary Orders into a trial on the merits without providing the Herreras the proper notice required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure § 245?
Issue 2: Did the Trial Court err in finding that the Herreras lacked standing to bring the Termination/Adoption suit?
Issue 3: Did the Trial Court err in dismissing the Herreras' Termination/Adoption suit on the merits?

         Background

         D.R.O. was born on November 15, 2016 to Deserae and Michael. Michael and Adam are cousins. On March 27, 2017, Deserae left D.R.O. with Monica, Adam's wife, after returning from a doctor's appointment. Monica testified that D.R.O. was left with her so that she could administer breathing treatments the doctor prescribed for D.R.O. Deserae testified that she left D.R.O. with Monica and Adam while she was looking for a job. The parties differ at this point on how often D.R.O. was left with the Herreras and how much time D.R.O. spent with the Herreras.

         Deserae testified that after she found a job, D.R.O. would stay with the Herreras during the week and would be returned to Deserae and Michael for the weekends. Monica testified that Deserae and Michael only saw D.R.O. six times over the next few months and that they did not see him at all between July 27 and September 19. Deserae denied that D.R.O. spent that much time with the Herreras.

         On September 17, 2017, Michael drove to the Herreras' home to get D.R.O. Monica refused to allow Michael to take D.R.O. because, she testified, Michael smelled of marijuana and the vehicle he was driving had no car seat. Michael testified that this was untrue. Deserae went to the Ennis Police Department on September 19, 2017. Deserae reported that the Herreras would not return D.R.O. to her, and she requested assistance in retrieving D.R.O. After communicating with Monica, officers with the police department contacted the Department of Family and Protective Services. Deserae eventually agreed to leave D.R.O. with the Herreras until the matter could be resolved.

         Also on September 19, 2017, the Herreras filed the present suit and requested temporary orders. The original petition did not provide specific factual or statutory support for standing on the part of the Herreras, although the petition notes under the heading, "Residence with Petitioners," that D.R.O. "will have lived in the home of Petitioners for at least six months when this case for Adoption is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.