# Wiley v. Spratlan

> Texas Supreme Court · July 14, 1976 · 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 385

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771502

## Case

- **Full name:** Jacquelyn Layne WILEY, Petitioner, v. Kelly SPRATLAN, Respondent
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 14, 1976
- **Citations:** 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 385; 543 S.W.2d 349; 1976 Tex. LEXIS 237
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steakley
- **Judges:** Pope, Steakley, McGee, Greenhill, Denton, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 566 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771502

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- recognizing strong presumption that child=s best interest is usually served by keeping custody in the natural parents

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771502. Public record. Not legal advice.