In the Interest of N. L. S. and E. J. C., Children

In re N. L. S. and E. J. C. · Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas · May 12, 2026 · No. 01-26-00100-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals for the First District affirmed the denial of a former parent’s petition to reinstate parental rights. The court held that the petitioner must prove at the reinstatement hearing that the child is not subject to an adoption placement agreement, even if no such agreement existed when the petition was filed.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Writing for the Court
Terry Adams, Chief Justice; Justice Guerra; Justice Guiney
Jurisdiction
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas
Decision date
May 12, 2026
Docket number
01-26-00100-CV
Procedural posture
Mother appealed the denial of her petition to reinstate her parental rights after the trial court found that the children were subject to an adoption placement agreement at the time of the reinstatement hearing.
Standard of review
De novo review applies to statutory interpretation because it presents a question of law.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Mother v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

termination of parental rightsadoptionstatutory interpretationplain meaning ruleappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawtermination of parental rightsadoption

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Texas Family Code section 161.303(c)(3) requires a former parent seeking reinstatement of parental rights to prove at the reinstatement hearing that the child is not subject to an adoption placement agreement.
  2. Whether the filing of a petition for reinstatement creates a statutory stay prohibiting DFPS from entering an adoption placement agreement while the petition is pending.

Holdings

  1. Texas Family Code section 161.302(b) establishes eligibility and filing requirements for a petition, while section 161.303(c) establishes separate proof requirements at the reinstatement hearing. Section 161.303(c)(3) therefore requires the former parent to prove at the time of the hearing that the child is not the subject of an adoption placement agreement.
  2. The filing of a petition for reinstatement does not create a statutory stay prohibiting DFPS from entering an adoption placement agreement while the petition is pending.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we hold that Family Code section 161.303(c)(3) unambiguously requires a former parent to prove, at the time of the reinstatement hearing, that the child is not the subject of an adoption placement agreement. (9)
Section 161.302(b) sets forth the mandatory filing requirements for a petition for reinstatement of parental rights and section 161.303(c) sets forth the separate proof requirements that the petitioner must show at the reinstatement hearing in order for the petition to be granted. (8)

Factual background

Mother’s parental rights to N.L.S. and E.J.C. were terminated in 2023, and DFPS was appointed managing conservator. The children began residing with prospective adoptive parents in 2025, and the prospective adoptive parents later signed intent-to-adopt forms. Mother filed a petition for reinstatement on November 19, 2025, when no adoption placement agreement was in place, but DFPS entered adoption placement agreements before the reinstatement hearing. At the hearing, the trial court found that the children were subject to adoption placement agreements and denied the petition.

Procedural history

The trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights on March 31, 2023, and named the Department of Family and Protective Services managing conservator. After the children’s prospective adoptive parents entered adoption placement agreements with DFPS, Mother filed a petition for reinstatement of parental rights. Following a January 20, 2026 hearing, the trial court denied the petition because the children were subject to an adoption placement agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…