Opinion
No. 14-03-00110-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed November 24, 2004.
On Appeal from the 313th District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 01-15960.
Affirmed.
Panel consists of Justices ANDERSON, HUDSON, and FROST.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, we must determine whether the trial court erred in denying Charlene Bauter's bill of review. Because Bauter's bill of review is barred by section 161.211 of the Texas Family Code, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 9, 1995, Harris County Children's Protective Services filed suit against Bauter for emergency protection and managing conservatorship of her minor child, J.H. The pleadings were subsequently amended to request termination of Bauter's parental rights.
After a bench trial, the trial court terminated Bauter's parental rights on May 26, 1998. Bauter filed a motion for new trial. Although the trial court did not sign an order granting the new trial, the trial court held a jury trial and purportedly terminated Bauter's parental rights again in a judgment signed on May 19, 1999.
Bauter appealed the May 19, 1999 judgment. The First Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the May 19, 1999 judgment because the trial court did not sign an order granting a new trial from the May 1998 bench trial. See In re J.H., 39 S.W.3d 688, 689-90 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Because Bauter did not timely appeal from the May 26, 1998 judgment, Bauter filed a bill of review. The trial court denied the bill of review.
II. ISSUE AND ANALYSIS
In her first issue, Bauter contends her bill of review is not barred by section 161.211 of the Texas Family Code. Section 161.211 provides that "the validity of an order terminating the parental rights of a person who has been personally served . . . is not subject to collateral or direct attack after the sixth month after the date the order was signed." TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.211(a) (Vernon 2002). Bauter does not dispute that she was personally served, that her bill of review is a collateral or direct attack, or that she filed her bill of review more than six months after the termination order was signed. However, Bauter disputes that section 161.211 is applicable to this case.
Bauter argues that section 161.211 is inapplicable because this proceeding is based on a suit filed on January 9, 1995 — before the enactment of section 161.211. However, the statute expressly provides:
This Act takes effect September 1, 1997. This Act applies only to an adoption order or order terminating parental rights signed on or after the effective date of this Act. An adoption order or order terminating parental rights signed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law as it existed before the effective date of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
Act of May 28, 1997, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 601, § 3, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 2118. By referring to the date the "order terminating parental rights [was] signed," id., the statute makes clear that the relevant date is not the date the suit was filed, but the date the order terminating parental rights was signed. In this case, the order terminating Bauter's parental rights was signed on May 26, 1998, after the effective date of the Act. Thus, section 161.211 bars Bauter's bill of review.
Appellant cites T.R.R. for the proposition that "the legislature made no provision that section 161.211 would apply to pending suits." In re T.R.R., 986 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). However, T.R.R. is distinguishable because the order terminating parental rights in that case was signed on August 21, 1995, before the effective date of the Act. See id. at 34. Thus, the T.R.R. court was not presented with the issue presented in this case.
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that section 161.211 of the Texas Family Code bars Bauter's bill of review. Accordingly we overrule appellant's first issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Based on our disposition of Bauter's first issue, we need not address her remaining issues.