Sample Resources
Browsing Resource Types: Cases — "ABA Standards of Practice"
In re Z.J.
Topic(s): Ad Litem — Statutory Duties — ABA Standards — Record on Appeal
Summary: Appellant mother contended that the child's attorney ad litem did not perform her statutory duties or the duties required by the American Bar Association standards. No record was filed. The court ruled that nothing requires the record to reflect what the ad litem did or did not do in regard to her duties. Furthermore, appellant did not object at trial and therefore did not preserve error for appeal.
Michael H. v. Gerald D.
Topic(s): Constitutional Rights — Liberty Interest — Children — Family Relationship
Summary: The Court noted it had not had an opportunity to decide whether a child has a liberty interest in maintaining the family relationship.
In re J.G.
Topic(s): Dismissal Date — Termination — Previous Statute Required Final Order — Trial Not Complete by Dismissal Date — Should be Dismissed
Summary: The trial court erred in not granting appellant mother's motion to dismiss under a previous version of Tex. Fam. Code § 263.401, which required that a final order be signed by the dismissal date in a termination suit. The court had granted a new trial after signing a termination order. The effect of the new trial order was to vacate the termination order and place the case back on the docket, on the same dismissal schedule as before. The court did not sign a final order by the dismissal date because trial was not concluded on that date.
T.L.M. v. TDFPS
Topic(s): Evidence — Hearsay — Service Plan — Cumulative of Other Evidence
Summary: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an unredacted copy of the Family Service Plan into evidence, despite appellant's hearsay objection. The objected-to statements were cumulative of other evidence.
In re K.S.
Topic(s): Indian Child Welfare Act — Termination — Must Prove Active Efforts at Reunification — Must Prove Potential Damage to Child — Must Have Expert Witness
Summary: Termination under the Indian Child Welfare Act requires findings that active efforts were made at reunification and continued custody by the parent would result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child, which must be proved by expert testimony.