CONCURRING OPINION
No. 04-12-00116-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J.C., a Child
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011-PA-01561
Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice
Concurring Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2012
I agree with the reasoning expressed by Justice Angelini in her opinion and concur in the
judgment. I also agree with the concerns expressed by Justice Speedlin in her concurring
opinion. I write separately to express my concern about the result reached in this case.
Justice Angelini correctly sets forth the standard by which we are to interpret statutes.
Based on a plain reading of the relevant statutes, the paternal grandparents were required to
establish standing by demonstrating they had substantial past contact with J.C. See TEX. FAM.
CODE ANN. § 102.005(5) (West Supp. 2012). The record contains evidence that the grandparents
sought to have contact with J.C. while J.C. was in the hospital and before the parental rights were
terminated, but the Department failed to provide any information about J.C. or her location to the
paternal grandparents. The grandfather testified that the Department “didn’t want to give us
visits. We had to go back to court until they decided to give us visits.” He also testified that he
and the grandmother would have visited J.C. more often, but the Department did not allow it.
The grandmother testified that she wanted to visit J.C., but the Department kept her away despite
her repeated requests.
Concurring Opinion 04-12-00116-CV
I am troubled because it appears a government agency prevented the paternal
grandparents from having the opportunity to establish standing by denying them the opportunity
to have substantial past contact. As Justice Speedlin asserts in her concurrence, under certain
circumstances, “a fundamental liberty interest in the parent-child relationship” extends to
grandparents. Concurring Opinion, at *3. While the exact parameters of this interest have not
been established, it seems fundamentally unfair to deny standing to a grandparent when
government action prevented the actions or activity necessary to establish the right to be
considered for adoption.
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
-2-