Chambers v. Terrell
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Neal v. Texas Department of Human Services (Tex. App. 1991)
- Martin v. Mooney (Tex. App. 1985)
- In the Interest of Baby Girl T. (Tex. App. 1995)
- Richardson v. Oldham (5th Cir. 1994)
- Richardson v. Oldham (District Court, E.D. Texas 1992)
- Byrne v. Catholic Charities, Diocese of San Angelo, Inc. (Tex. App. 1986)
- in the Interest of A.R.M.K., a Child (Tex. App. 2019)
- in Re Barre Morris (Tex. App. 2016)
- In re Morris (Tex. App. 2016)
- Angelica Mitchell Moore and Kevin Alexander Moore v. Donna M. Brown and Alvin Benard Brown (Tex. App. 2013)
- Vallejo v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (Tex. App. 2009)
- Alexander Vallejo v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Tex. App. 2009)
- Alexander Vallejo v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Tex. App. 2009)
- in the Interest of L.M.I. and J.A.I., Minor Children (Tex. 2003)
- Lumbis v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services (Tex. App. 2002)
- Robin Cash Lumbis v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (Tex. App. 2002)
- Robin Cash Lumbis v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (Tex. App. 2002)
- In re VRW (Tex. App. 2001)
- In the Interest of V.R.W. (Tex. App. 2001)
- Vela v. Marywood (Tex. App. 2000)
- Corina Vela v. Marywood (Tex. App. 2000)
- Prince v. First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. (Tex. App. 1993)
- Coleman v. Smallwood (Tex. App. 1990)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This suit was brought for termination of parental rights and for the adoption of a child of the parents. Only the termination of parental rights is before us.
After signing an affidavit relinquishing possession, the mother, without delay, changed her mind; and she resisted termination. The trial court ordered termination.
The Court of Appeals reversed that judgment and dismissed the petition for termination. A reason assigned was that there was no evidence to support the finding of the trial court that termination was in the best interest of the child. 630 S.W.2d 800.
*452 There is not a point attacking this “no evidence” holding; and we regard that as dispositive of the case.
The holding of the Court of Appeals that there must be “clear and convincing evidence” for a “voluntary” termination was unnecessary. The trial court, sitting without a jury, did not use a lesser standard.
We are not to be understood as approving the holding of the Court of Appeals that the affidavit of relinquishment was void because the attorney who acted as the notary to take the affidavits had a “strong financial and beneficial interest.” Among other things, no financial interest appears in the record. The point is reserved.
The writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.