holding that termination does not merely end the right of the parent to physical possession of the child, it terminates forever the natural right which exists between parents and their children
How later courts described this case
- holding that termination does not merely end the right of the parent to physical possession of the child, it terminates forever the natural right which exists between parents and their children
- holding both elements must be established and requirements of subsection (1) are not excused because a court may be of the opinion that subsection (2) has been proved
- holding A[t]his court has always recognized the strong presumption that the best interest of a minor is usually served by keeping custody in the natural parents@
- holding no section 102.003(a)(9) standing existed for nonparent because parent “did not relinquish to petitioner or abdicate her parental rights, duties, and responsibilities” to nonparent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEAKLEY, Justice
(concurring).
I did not agree with the majority in Cawley v. Allums, 518 S.W.2d 790 (Tex.1975), as evidenced by joinder in the dissent. But I accept it as applicable here as written by the majority.