OPINION WITHDRAWN
MAY 16, 2001
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-99-153-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF
J.F.C., A.B.C. AND M.B.C., MINOR CHILDREN
From the 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court # 97-3578-1
DISSENTING OPINION
The constitutional protection of procedural due process does not require a reversal of the judgment in this case. The charge was not as precise as it could have been. But the parents had a full trial on the merits. They had the opportunity to object to the charge. They did not. The majority’s adoption of a criminal standard of review for charge error, which is based on a statute, is not required in this civil proceeding.
There is no reason that we should not apply the ordinary rules of civil procedure and appellate review to this proceeding. Where it is arguable that a finding necessary to the judgment was not submitted to the jury, the finding is normally implied in support of the judgment if the implied finding has evidentiary support in the record. But we need not even rely on an implied finding. There is an express finding in the judgment that termination of the parent/child relationship is in the best interest of the children.
Constitutional protections of the parent/child relationship are adequately accorded the parents in this proceeding by a diligent review of the proceedings to determine if the express findings made by the jury and the court, are supported by the record. Finding that those findings are supported by the record, I would not reverse the judgment terminating the parental rights on the basis of charge error. Because the majority unnecessarily complicates review of termination proceedings by imposition of a criminal statutory requirement as part of minimum procedural due process in a civil proceeding, I respectfully dissent.
TOM GRAY
Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed April 4, 2001
Publish