in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R

Court of Appeals of Texas

in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R

DecidedApril 23, 2013

Docket14-12-00915-CV

StatusPublished

This text of in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R (in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 23, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00915-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R AND M.L.R, Children

On Appeal from the 1A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32476

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from an order dismissing an original petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship for lack of standing. We affirm.

Suit was brought by James Lee Roesch, as “the father of the children the subject of this suit.” Roesch’s parental rights have been terminated but he claims standing as “a relative of the child within the third degree of consanguinity” because he is the biological father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.004(a) (West 2008). Roesch is not a relative within the meaning of section 102.004(a). As their biological father, Roesch’s relation to the children would be “parent.” However, section 101.024(a) expressly provides that “parent” does not include a parent as to whom the parent-child relationship has been terminated. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.024(a) (West 2008).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed. Appellee’s request to find this appeal frivolous is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 23, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00915-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R AND M.L.R, Children

On Appeal from the 1A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 32476

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from an order dismissing an original petition in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship for lack of standing. We affirm.

Suit was brought by James Lee Roesch, as “the father of the children the subject of this suit.” Roesch’s parental rights have been terminated but he claims standing as “a relative of the child within the third degree of consanguinity” because he is the biological father. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 102.004(a) (West 2008). Roesch is not a relative within the meaning of section 102.004(a). As their biological father, Roesch’s relation to the children would be “parent.” However, section 101.024(a) expressly provides that “parent” does not include a parent as to whom the parent-child relationship has been terminated. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 101.024(a) (West 2008).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed. Appellee’s request to find this appeal frivolous is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Boyce and Donovan.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

in the Interest of A.N.R., D.A.R, W.J.R and M.L.R, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-anr-dar-wjr-and-mlr-texapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack