In re C.E.
2012 WL 4717882, 391 S.W.3d 200, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 8332 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A verified petition alleging that a misrepresentation caused a man to believe he was a child's biological father, coupled with circumstantial evidence supporting that allegation, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for ordering genetic testing under Texas Family Code section 161.005(c).
Facts:
- In 1995, while Stephanie Garcia was dating Christopher Ehrhardt, she was also in a sexual relationship with another man.
- The month after Ehrhardt discovered Garcia's relationship with the other man, Garcia announced she was pregnant.
- After the child, C.E., was born in 1995, Ehrhardt signed the birth certificate acknowledging paternity, initially believing the child resembled him.
- Over the years, Ehrhardt began to notice significant physical differences between himself and C.E. as the child grew older.
- Several years before the suit, Ehrhardt overheard C.E. mention to Ehrhardt's wife that Ehrhardt might not be her biological father.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2001, following a petition by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), a trial court adjudicated Christopher Ehrhardt as C.E.'s father and entered an agreed child support order.
- In June 2011, the OAG filed a petition in the trial court to increase Ehrhardt's child support obligation.
- In July 2011, Ehrhardt filed a petition in the same trial court to terminate the parent-child relationship.
- The trial court held a pre-trial hearing and found that Ehrhardt failed to make a prima facie showing to warrant genetic testing.
- The trial court denied the request for genetic testing and dismissed Ehrhardt's suit.
- Ehrhardt (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, with the OAG and Garcia as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a man establish a meritorious prima facie case for genetic testing to terminate his parental rights under Texas Family Code § 161.005(c) by submitting a verified petition alleging he was misled about his paternity, supported by circumstantial evidence of the mother's relationship with another man at the time of conception and a growing lack of physical resemblance to the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bland
Yes. A verified petition alleging misrepresentation, combined with circumstantial evidence, constitutes a prima facie case for genetic testing. The prima facie standard requires only the minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the alleged fact is true. Here, Ehrhardt filed a verified petition tracking the statutory language, alleging he mistakenly believed he was the father due to misrepresentations. This was supported by circumstantial evidence adduced at a hearing: 1) Garcia's admission of a sexual relationship with another man a month before announcing her pregnancy, creating another possible father; 2) Ehrhardt's testimony about the child's changing appearance and lack of resemblance; and 3) the child's own statement questioning Ehrhardt's paternity. The court concluded that Garcia's act of naming Ehrhardt as the father on the birth certificate and in child support proceedings could constitute a misrepresentation in light of this evidence, thereby satisfying the low evidentiary bar for a prima facie case and warranting an order for genetic testing.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for a man seeking to terminate parental rights under this specific Texas statute, establishing that direct evidence of an explicit, verbal misrepresentation is not required. The court's acceptance of a sworn petition combined with purely circumstantial evidence (infidelity, lack of resemblance) significantly lowers the barrier for presumed fathers to obtain court-ordered genetic testing. This precedent makes it easier for men in similar situations to challenge paternity long after it was legally established, shifting the focus from proving a specific lie to simply presenting enough evidence to create a rational doubt about paternity.
