Background
A New Mexico court appointed Daina Leigh Norton as kinship guardian of her grandson, D.J.L., in 2016. Edward M. Toliver, the child’s paternal grandfather and Norton’s former husband, was not a party to that case and received no rights, responsibilities, or duties under the guardianship order. Norton and her husband later moved to Texas.
In 2023, the Nortons obtained a Texas order terminating the biological parents’ rights and adopting the child. Toliver was not served in that proceeding. After learning of the adoption in 2024, he filed a bill of review and declaratory-judgment action approximately eleven months after the Texas order, and separately sought shared custody through a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. The trial court dismissed both cases for lack of standing.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Toliver’s bill of review. Texas Family Code sections 161.211 and 162.012 bar direct or collateral challenges to termination and adoption orders after six months, and the court treated that deadline as jurisdictional. Toliver filed too late.
The court rejected Toliver’s argument that his lack of notice preserved his challenge. He was not among the persons entitled to notice under Texas law: the New Mexico order gave him no custody or access rights, and his visitation was subject to Norton’s discretion. The court therefore vacated the dismissal based on standing and rendered judgment dismissing the bill-of-review case for want of jurisdiction. It affirmed dismissal of Toliver’s separate custody-modification suit because a biological grandparent lacks standing to seek possession or access after both parents’ rights have been terminated or the child has been adopted.
Key Takeaways
- A challenge to a Texas termination or adoption order filed more than six months after entry is jurisdictionally barred under the court’s reading of the Family Code.
- A grandfather’s informal caregiving and contact with a child did not make him a person legally entitled to notice of the termination and adoption proceeding.
- After termination of both biological parents’ rights and adoption, a biological grandparent lacks standing to pursue custody or access under the Family Code.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the exceptionally short window for challenging Texas termination and adoption judgments, even where a nonparent asserts that another state had previously exercised custody jurisdiction. The court noted that the statutory framework may leave affected relatives and courts without notice, but concluded that any remedy for those concerns lies with the Legislature.