Since the last time I posted anything, I had two court hearings, that yes, despite the obvious violation of the double jeopardy clause, and leading me straight into two concurrent hearings addressing the same issue at the same exact time of what are ultimately, parental termination proceedings.
Now, in order to terminate my parental rights, there had to be clear and compelling evidence to substantiate the facts. Williams v The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
Not the other way around, as the court is doing. The burden of proof falls on the party seeking termination.
In the Interest of J.N.R.a child, 982 S.W.2d 137, 141 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.)
“The termination of parental rights involves fundamental constitutional rights. Stanley v. Illinois,405 U.S. 645,651, 92 S. Ct. 1208,1212-13, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1972); see also Holick v. Smith,685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.1985). Therefore, evidence supporting the findings to terminate parental rights must be clear and convincing, not just preponderate. In the Interest of G.M.,596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex.1980); Harris v. Herbers,838 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). The clear and convincing standard of proof is intentionally placed on the party seeking the termination of the parental rights, so as to create a higher burden to fulfill, because of the severity and permanence of the termination of the parent-child relationship. Spurlock v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,904 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, writ denied); Harris, 838 S.W.2d at 941. This standard requires more proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard in civil cases, but less than the reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. G.M., 596 S.W.2d at 847; Harris, 838 S.W.2d at 941. The clear and convincing standard is the degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be proved. G.M., 596 S.W.2d at 847; Harris, 838 S.W.2d at 941.”
The issue of parental termination is a fundamental right, and a constitutional issue.
There has been yet, to this day, one piece of evidence against me entered into the record and presented before the court.
Not just some missing evidence… I mean there has been ZERO evidence against me that is admissible or that was properly presented, either corroborating or supporting the allegations presented in court in this case.
This entire case hinges on ‘what he said behind my back’. A he-said, he-said. Because I surely never got my fair side of she-said. That’s how pathetic this case is.
Since my last post, I have lost permanent custody of my child. The judge made a mockery of me, complaining about the “$10 cup of coffee” they can’t afford, the BAR association meeting he had to scurry off to, and then, upon sitting down nervously in the witness seat, being told to “hold on” as he shuffled through his stack of papers, citing that he was only a man and could only do one thing at a time he “wasn’t like a woman that could multi-task”. I started showing him the evidence which clearly showed that there was no reason whatsoever for my son not to be with me, but what did he do? He didn’t respond, he didn’t ask questions, he didn’t even read the much anticipated therapist reports… he just kept shuffling through the stack of papers he has just clearly told me he couldn’t look through if he was trying to listen to what I was saying.
The hearing promptly ended when I ended my rambling, stopping abruptly, realizing that he wasn’t engaging nor paying attention to me. I said “that’s all”. He told me to take a seat, and before the Plaintiff could commence, he looked at Dennis and his lawyer, and said that the court hearing was about me showing clear and persuasive evidence that I am well enough to see my son, and finds that “she did not” prove with persuasive evidence that she is well enough to see her kid. He then proceeds to ask opposing counsel to draft up the order making the temporary orders of custody with no visitation, now permanent.
I have now lost permanent custody of my child, without any rights to visitation.
It’s been extremely difficult and challenging. And since the federal courts dismissed my case, the only place to go is to the Supreme Court of the United States with my claim.
And while, and since I’m there, I’m trying to change a lot of things, so that all our rights are protected.