DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 17, 2017.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01207-CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-1176-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
In this suit affecting the parent–child relationship, a jury found that Mother’s parental
rights to A.G. should be terminated and that Foster Mom should be named primary managing
conservator of A.G. instead of Mother’s cousin. The trial court rendered judgment according to
the jury’s verdict. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 105.002(c) (West 2015) (trial court may not
contravene jury verdict on issue of appointment of managing conservator).
Mother does not appeal the termination of her parental rights, but she appeals the jury’s
finding that it was in A.G.’s best interest to appoint Foster Mom, not Mother’s cousin, as
managing conservator of A.G. We conclude that Mother lacks standing to challenge the jury’s
findings regarding conservatorship.
An order terminating a parent’s rights to a child divests the parent and the child of all
legal rights and duties with respect to each other except the child’s right to inherit from and
through her parent. Id. § 161.206(b) (West 2014). Mother does not appeal the jury’s
determination that her parental rights should be terminated. Consequently, those findings are
binding on her. See In re S.M.C., No. 07-04-0429-CV, 2005 WL 441538, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Feb. 25, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.). Upon termination of the parent–child relationship
between Mother and A.G., Mother lost all legal right with respect to A.G. As a result, Mother
does not have standing to challenge the jury’s findings concerning appointment of Foster Mom
as A.G.’s managing conservator. Id.; see also In re H.M.M., 230 S.W.3d 204, 204 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (mother did not have standing to challenge order that failed
to grant grandfather sole custody of minor because she lost all legal interest in child when she
did not appeal order terminating her parental rights). And Mother’s cousin does not appeal the
jury’s findings against her.
Because Mother does not have standing to challenge the appointment of A.G.’s managing
conservator, we do not have subject-matter jurisdiction over her claim. Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
161207F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., A CHILD, On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-16-01207-CV Trial Court Cause No. 14-1176-W.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers.
Justices Bridges and Whitehill participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want
of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered this 17th day of February, 2017.
–3–