Interesting way to do it anyway.
Juvenile boot camp, racist.
Well, I guess you can find something for everything.
How long have you been doing this family court stuff?
About 15 years.
Just let me know when you're ready, Jim.
I'm ready.
Go ahead.
Judge, in general terms, the responsibilities
of an adoptive parent, when do they take effect?
And at what point could they ever
be terminated under what kind of circumstances?
An adoption is like a birth for a child.
So if you look at an adoptive parent in the
same terms
as you would a biological parent with absolutely
no legal difference, then that's the way to
look at it.
There are times when it's in a child's best interest
to sever that relationship, be it from a
natural parent
or from an adoptive parent.
But the only time when it makes any sense
to terminate that parent-child relationship
is if adoption is the plan for the child,
because what you look at is the best
interest of the child, not the parents,
but the best interest of the child.
And the case law tells us that one of the things
that you look to to determine the best
interest of the child are the plans for the child
now and in the future.
And if that plan does not include adoption,
it does not make any sense to terminate a
parental right,
because what you do is you cut off a source of support
for the child.
And so the only time termination is
necessary to give rights to some other person
is when those rights you want to give are
adoptive rights.
It's impossible to adopt without terminating
either the natural parents or the adoptive parents,
as the case may be.
And so that's the only time when it's really
in a child's best interest is when a child can
be adopted.
Otherwise, you can give a caretaker
all the rights they would have as an adoptive parent
by simply naming them as a managing conservator.
When you do that, then they have a financial partner.
And that is the parental entity that's
responsible for the child, be it a biological parent
or an adoptive parent.
So when you net it all out, the bottom line
is, are you going to place this child for adoption?
If that's the plan and somebody's ready to do that,
then it's time to consider termination
as a best interest for the child.
Until that time comes, it's not in a child's
best interest
to cut off a source of support.
Give me some scenarios or, in general,
under what circumstances do parents
come seeking to terminate parental rights?
You name it, I mean, it covers the waterfront.
You've got circumstances where a child is
conceived during a rape.
And that mother may have a religious conviction
against abortion.
But by the same token, she doesn't
want to be a single parent raising a child fathered
by somebody she doesn't know.
So that would give rise to her giving up that child
to be placed for adoption.
Someone who is a single parent already has
three children
and now is pregnant again.
And she can handle three but not four
and want to give the child up on that basis.
Someone who has been married for some period of time
and the wife and the husband have decided
they don't want children.
But some way or other, she gets pregnant
and they both decide that they want to give
that child up
for adoption.
But you see the common thread running through
all this
is giving the child up for adoption.
If that is not the plan, then of course,
you could take the child and turn it over
to some agency to raise for you, if that's what
you want to do.
But if you do that, then you have a responsibility
to support that child.
We don't just have children being turned back over
to the state then in Texas?
Oh, we have children turned over to the state
all the time in Texas.
We have adoptions that break down all the time
in Texas.
But irrespective of that, what you look at
is what's in the best interest of that child.
And when children are turned over to the state
to raise,
that does not relieve the parents
of the financial obligation to support those children.
And support is an obligation.
It's not a debt.
It's an obligation.
And so it boils down to dollars and cents then?
Well, it boils down to dollars and cents
if adoption is not in the future.
Because what's going to change?
Let's analyze that for a moment.
Let's say a child is turned over to an adoption agency
or the state or whomever.
And that entity, the adoption agency or the state,
is going to be responsible to raise that child.
Now, what changes are brought about by terminating
the parental rights?
The only change that's brought about
is the financial obligation of the parents
to support that child.
Going to be in the same place, going
to be raised by the same people, going
to be raised by the same organizations,
going to go to the same school.
Daily routine will not change one iota.
The only thing that changes is somebody
is absolved of a financial responsibility.
Now, if you don't terminate, what happens?
No change as far as the child is concerned.
The same people raise it, sleeps in the same
bed, same sheets,
same lunch, same school, same everything.
But in addition to the state funds
that you have or the state obligation,
you also have a family obligation
from that biological family or the adoptive family,
their responsibility to be financially
responsible for the child.
And there is absolutely no difference for some entity
raising a child as a conservator and having
that parent-child
relationship severed, save and except for the fact
that it cuts off a financial source.
If adoption is the plan, then termination must
take place.
And then it's in the best interest of the child
to do that, because now you have a family that's
ready, willing, and able to assume
all the responsibilities, all the financial responsibilities,
all the responsibilities of decision-making
in that child's life.
So then it's in the child's best interest to terminate.
But until that time comes, when somebody
is ready to step forward and say adoption
is the plan for this child, then it is simply not
in the best interest of that kid to cut off a
source of support.
I know you don't want to address the Stanton
case specifically,
but can you put it in perspective for me?
Is this a unique case, or somewhat common
in what you see in family?
Speaking in general terms, it's unique in the sense
that 99.9% of the adoptive parents who adopt children
understand that it's a final circumstance,
a final situation, a new birth for the child.
And as such, they understand that the child is theirs.
And whereas parents can divorce each other,
they cannot divorce their children.
And so most adoptive parents understand that.
And if something happens that they're not expecting,
they don't look around for somebody
else to shoulder that burden for them.
And so they go on about their business,
and they do just what any other birth parent
would do
under the same or similar circumstances,
and that's to play the hand that's dealt them.
Now, life's not fair.
And sometimes adoptive parents come
into the possession of children as adoptive parents
that end up with problems later on down the road.
And if that happens, then that's too bad,
just like it's too bad for it to happen to a
birth parent.
But they still are stuck with those circumstances,
and they're going to have to make the best of it.
The only difference is in an adoptive situation.
If an adoption agency or the state
has misrepresented the facts, for example,
and they have said that this is the Gerber child,
this is the Gerber baby, and there's never
going to be any problems with this child.
And in reliance on that, the adoptive parents
consummate the adoption.
And then they later find out that the facts have
been misrepresented to them.
In that circumstance, those adoptive parents still
are not going to be absolved of their responsibility.
They're still going to be liable.
They're still going to be in that for life,
and they're still going to have to play the
hand that's dealt them.
The only difference is now, since they were
lied to,
the facts were misrepresented to them.
Now, they can go to court and get a financial partner
to help them raise that child.
And it's just exactly the same set of circumstances
you would find with a birth parent that
went into a hospital and had a doctor caused
by some malpractice act.
A doctor caused some brain damage
that would cause that child to be an invalid
all its life.
Those birth parents are responsible still
for that child.
They just get a financial partner
in helping them because of the malpractice that
was perpetrated.
Those are just exactly similar analogies.
The bottom line, though, is that adoptive parents,
once that order is signed and they become the adoptive
parents, then they're the mother and the father
of that child
just like birth parents are.
And if something happens later on,
then that's the way life treats us.
And we have to go on about our business
and accept the fact that we didn't get the
perfect child.
I talked to some adoption agencies
other than Hope Cottage, and a number of them
said that, yes, under medical circumstances,
they had taken babies back and didn't
recall running into a situation where
the severing of parental rights was a problem.
But I don't know what the situation was as far
as finding another adoption.
I don't either.
And I wouldn't criticize them for taking a
child back.
I think it's laudable that they would do that.
But as a judge, I have to look at what's
in the best interest of the child,
not what's in the best interest of the adoption agency
or the birth parents or the adoptive parents that
want to place that child.
You strictly have to look on a case-by-case basis
as to the best interest of the child,
and that's never served by cutting off
a source of support unless adoption is the plan,
and then it's in the best interest
because it's necessary to terminate before you
can adopt.
Have you terminated adoptive parents' rights before?
I think I have had about seven cases where
adoptions have
broken down and they've brought children back
to try to sever that relationship
and end their obligation.
As I recall, in only one instance was adoption
in the future of that child, and that's the
only time
termination was allowed.
In the other six cases, termination
was not allowed on exactly the same ground,
and that is it's not in the best interest of
the child
because nobody's stepping forward
to say they want to adopt.
And until adoption is the plan, then
termination is never
in the child's best interest.
Never is a pretty all-inclusive term.
Perhaps we should say rarely because there
may be some circumstances where termination of
the parent-child
relationship without adoption might be best for
a child.
For example, an abusive father that is now in
the state
penitentiary and that mother doesn't want him
to ever have
any possibility of any access to that child, in
that instance,
terminating that father's parent-child relationship
might very well be in the child's best interest.
But under a scenario like that, you've
still got the birth mother who's responsible,
and all she's trying to do is to protect that child.
It could work the other way with a mother who's
abusive and a father that might want
to terminate the parent-child relationship for
the protection
of the child.
But again, it's the best interest of the child
that you look at.
And only in rare instances will you
ever find that it's in the child's best interest
to cut off a source of support unless adoption
is in that child's future.
I think I got the message.
We're dealing with child abuse and neglect
or juvenile delinquency.
One time that was stealing candy from the 7-Eleven,
but we got, I think, 15 or 16 kids
right now in detention for murder or capital murder.
And it needs to be settled, the father is a million.
They want to name you as a manager and a third-quarter
You know what's left?
They named us a manager and a third-quarter.
And you're just exactly like them.
The only thing you don't have is the adopt child,
bring you a child, send you a child with it,
and a child with a stew.
You're responsible.