In the Interest of L.M.I. and J.A.I., Minor Children

Summary

The document concerns the termination of Ricardo Duenas’s and Luz Maria Inocencio’s parental rights based on affidavits of relinquishment. The dissent argues that Duenas preserved a legal-sufficiency challenge and that termination required clear and convincing evidence that his English-language affidavit was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily executed. It also addresses the constitutional and statutory burdens of proof applicable to parental-rights termination proceedings.

Holdings

1. Justice Owen would hold that Duenas preserved a legal sufficiency challenge even though he did not use precise constitutional or sufficiency terminology in every filing; his briefs fairly presented the complaint that there was no clear and convincing evidence that his affidavit was knowingly and voluntarily executed.
2. Justice Owen would hold that the ultimate burden remains on the party seeking termination to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the affidavit of relinquishment was knowingly and voluntarily executed; that burden cannot be shifted to the parent to prove involuntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Justice Owen would hold that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Duenas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily executed the affidavit of relinquishment, and therefore would reverse the termination of his parental rights.
4. Justice Owen would hold that Inocencio preserved a legal sufficiency challenge, but that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the finding that she voluntarily executed her affidavit without fraud, duress, coercion, or undue influence; the termination order should therefore be affirmed as to her.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Duenas preserved a legal sufficiency challenge to the finding that his affidavit of relinquishment was knowingly and voluntarily executed.
2. Whether termination of parental rights based on an affidavit of relinquishment requires clear and convincing evidence that the affidavit was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily executed.
3. Whether the ultimate burden of proving the voluntariness of a challenged affidavit of relinquishment may be shifted to the parent who signed it.
4. Whether the record contained legally sufficient clear and convincing evidence that Duenas knowingly and voluntarily executed his affidavit.
5. Whether Inocencio preserved and could prevail on a legal sufficiency challenge based on alleged undue influence, fraud, coercion, and unenforceable promises.

Disposition

affirmed