In the Interest of D. D., a child Appeal from 392nd District Court of Henderson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice worthen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-15-00192-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS § APPEAL FROM THE 392ND § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE INTEREST OF D. D., A CHILD MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court rendered a judgment terminating the parent-child relationship between A.J. and D.D. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.001(b)(1) (West Supp. 2016). We previously abated this appeal with instructions for the trial court to give proper notification pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and determine whether D.D. is an Indian child as defined by the ICWA. See In re D.D., 12-15-00192-CV, 2016 WL 1082477, at *8 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 29, 2016, no pet.). This proceeding is now reinstated. In the memorandum opinion and abatement order, we stated that if the trial court determined that D.D. is not an Indian child, we would issue a judgment affirming the trial court’s termination judgment. On September 8, 2016, the trial court found that proper notice was sent to the tribes identified by A.J. and D.D.’s father, D.C.D., and evidence showed that the child, D.D., is not eligible for membership in these tribes. Thus, the trial court found that D.D. is not an Indian child within the meaning of the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4) (Westlaw through Pub. L. No. 114-244). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. JAMES T. WORTHEN Chief Justice Opinion delivered November 9, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT NOVEMBER 9, 2016 NO. 12-15-00192-CV IN THE INTEREST OF D. D., A CHILD Appeal from the 392nd District Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014B-0084) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. James T. Worthen, Chief Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
