Major Wins in Texas Parental Rights Cases

The Family Freedom Project (FFP) has achieved significant legal victories in Texas concerning parental rights. In the first case, the Texas Supreme Court restricted Child Protective Services' (CPS) power to terminate parental rights over minor bureaucratic issues, requiring clear evidence of noncompliance with essential court-ordered tasks instead. In the second case, the court upheld a Court of Appeals decision that judges cannot interfere with parental rights unless necessary to protect a child from significant harm, a stance the FFP consistently advocates, though the Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive statewide ruling on this standard. Listen to find out more!

Donate to the Family Freedom Project

Transcript

We recognized some years ago that it was not enough to pass new laws when government agencies and sometimes individuals would simply ignore the law, especially when facing families with limited resources. Therefore we began to pursue litigation to protect families but also to clarify the law and set precedents on the kinds of issues where parental rights were being assaulted. 

While we were very successful in the legislative session in passing legislation to reform CPS, there were some critical parental rights issues that we were pursuing at the Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX). On December 15th we were overjoyed with the response of the court in two cases. 

In the first case, the court released an opinion reigning in the power of CPS. In the second case, SCOTX declined to review a strong and favorable defense of parental rights issued by the Court of Appeals (COA). This leaves the favorable COA opinion in place - a great win for parental rights. Let me give you the details.

Case #1: Reigning in the power of CPS to terminate parental rights over bureaucratic technicalities 

This fall, the SCOTX held oral arguments on a case (In re R.J.G., R.J.G., D.G.M. ), that centers on whether Child Protective Services (CPS) can terminate parental rights based on a parent's failure to fulfill technical administrative requirements imposed by CPS. 

The court emphatically held that, due to the constitutional weight of parental rights, termination cannot occur solely for failure to check off inconsequential bureaucratic tasks. Parental rights may only be terminated if important, court-ordered tasks are explicitly outlined, and the parent substantially and critically fails to fulfill them. The ruling underscores that termination should not hinge on minor technicalities but rather on a parent's failure to address significant and essential responsibilities as mandated by the court.

Chris Branson, a Senior Fellow at the Family Freedom Project (FFP), filed a brief on behalf of FFP in the case, arguing that the court should strike down the law as unconstitutional or else narrowly interpret it to ensure that technicalities don’t tear families apart. 

Justice Huddle delivered the opinion of the Court, emphasizing the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children. The ruling underscores that the State must demonstrate to a court that governmental intrusion is warranted before infringing on a parent's rights.

The court clarified that termination requires clear and convincing evidence of noncompliance with a "specifically established" requirement in the written court-ordered service plan. The Court ultimately found legally insufficient evidence to support termination in this case and reversed the judgment, rendering a decision in favor of the parent.

This is a huge win for Texas parents and families!

Case #2: Judges cannot interfere with parental rights unless it is necessary to protect the child from significant harm.

In the second case (titled In re NH), SCOTX denied an appeal by a non-parent who was seeking to usurp the rights of the child’s biological parent. This denial upholds the good opinion of the Court of Appeals. According to the Court of Appeals, judges are not permitted to interfere in the parent-child relationship unless it is necessary to protect the child from significant harm. 

Cecilia Wood, a family law attorney from Austin and a longtime partner to FFP,  filed a brief on behalf of FFP arguing that a court should never be able to intervene in a parent’s decisions for their child unless it is necessary to protect the child from significant harm. 

This case resulted in a partial, but still significant, win for parental rights. The Family Freedom Project has now sought clarification from the Texas Supreme Court three times regarding what standard judges are required to follow when considering a possible intervention in the parent-child relationship. The court has ultimately declined to specify the answer in all three cases. 

FFP has consistently argued that no intervention can be justified under the US Constitution unless that intervention is necessary to protect the child from significant harm. 

Significantly, the COA in this case had previously issued an opinion agreeing with this exact position. While the decision from the SCOTX today leaves this favorable COA opinion in place, the SCOTX declined to issue its own opinion, which would have settled this critical legal question statewide. 

As a result, different trial courts and appellate courts will continue to reach different opinions on this issue until the SCOTX finally decides to intervene and settle the question. FFP will continue defending parental rights in the courts with the aim of ultimately resolving this critically important issue at the Texas Supreme Court. 

At the Family Freedom Project, we are dedicated to defending parental rights in the state of Texas at the legislature and before the courts. As we celebrate these victories, we are aware that there is still much work to be done, and we need your help.

We still have two cases pending at SCOTX that we have filed briefs in. One is defending Senate Bill 14, which outlawed gender transition surgeries for minors. You can read about that here. The other is another CPS case related to child endangerment.

CPS has often treated certain conduct as de facto harm to a child even if no harm occurred and no specific risk was posed to the parent’s actual child. As seen in this case, CPS contends that any drug use, regardless of its impact on the children’s safety or well-being, justifies automatic parental rights termination. Thus, whether a parent became addicted to prescription drugs by accident or whether they run a neighborhood drug ring may be seen as the same in the eyes of the law.

We contend that, to terminate a parent’s rights—rights granted by God and protected as fundamental under the US Constitution—CPS must establish the specific circumstances of danger to the child that necessitate that termination. 

A theoretical risk of harm to a theoretical child is not enough. When CPS removes a child from their home, the harm done to that child is not theoretical. That harm is tangible and often lifelong. When considering whether to remove a child from their home, then, CPS should be required to prove an actual risk of harm to the child. Read more about that case here.

Your contributions have the power to significantly impact our mission to uphold a parent to shape their children's upbringing. Every donation, regardless of its size, plays a pivotal role in positively influencing families throughout the state.