Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Jose Guadalupe Duran ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                            NUMBER 13-13-00423-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF TEXAS,                                                                      Appellant,
    v.
    JOSE GUADALUPE DURAN,                                                           Appellee.
    On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
    of Hidalgo County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria
    Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez
    Appellant, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appeals from the trial court’s
    judgment that appellee, Jose Guadalupe Duran, pay nothing in back child support. By
    one issue, appellant contends that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it ordered
    that [appellee,] be released from a child support arrearage judgment in contravention of
    Texas Family Code section 161.005.” See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.005 (West,
    Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (permitting a man to terminate the parent-child
    relationship if paternity was previously established without the benefit of genetic testing
    and a misrepresentation caused the man to believe that he fathered the child). We affirm.
    I.      BACKGROUND
    After the trial court, without hearing evidence, concluded that Duran’s paternal
    rights to the child be terminated and that Duran was not required to pay any past
    arrearages of child support, appellant filed a motion for new trial. The trial court granted
    appellants’ motion and held a hearing on June 12, 2013. At this hearing, the trial court
    asked Duran a few questions, heard oral argument from the attorneys, and admitted
    E.U.’s deemed admissions into evidence.1
    In addition, Duran’s trial counsel argued that under its inherent powers, the trial
    court could determine under the doctrine of equity that Duran should not have to pay the
    child support arrearages. Specifically, Duran’s trial counsel urged that E.U. had lied to
    Duran about his paternity and that she should not benefit from that lie because the child
    was now an adult, and any award of child support would go to E.U. Appellant countered
    that even in the case of fraud, the statute requires that the man who has terminated his
    parental rights pay all child support arrearages.
    The trial court took the case under advisement, and on July, 8, 2013, it signed an
    order finding that E.U. committed fraud “by claiming that [Duran] was the biological father
    of [the child] when [E.U.] knew that [Duran] was not the father of the child and obtaining
    1   Duran was ordered to pay child support to the mother of the child, E.U.
    2
    a child support court order ordering [Duran] to pay child support for a child that he is not
    legally obligated to support.” The trial court made the following findings of fact:
    The court finds that on February 7, 2013 this court entered an order
    terminating the parental rights of [Duran] as to [the child] based on DNA
    evidence that excluded him as the father of said child. The court also
    ordered that child support arrearages be set aside.
    On February 26, 2013, the Texas Attorney General filed a motion for
    new trial claiming that the Texas Family Code § 161.005(i) did not affect
    [Duran’s] obligations for support of the child incurred before the date of
    termination. The State did not object to the termination of the parental
    rights.
    On April 8, 2013, this court granted a new trial solely limited to the
    issue of child support arrearages.
    The court finds that as of September 15, 2012, total arrearages
    amounted to $29,876.59 which is being paid at $350.00 per month by
    [Duran].
    The court finds the following based on deemed admissions of [E.U.]
    admitted into evidence without objection.
    (i)     [E.U.] knew that [Duran] was not the father of [the child]
    at the time that she was born.
    (ii)    [E.U.] failed to name [Duran] as the father of [the child]
    in her certificate of birth.
    (iii)   [E.U.] mislead [Duran] into believing that he was the
    father of [the child].
    (iv)    [E.U.] knew that [Duran] was not the father of [the child]
    at the time that she sought child support in the State of
    Michigan.
    (v)     [E.U.] had sexual relations with other men at the time
    [the child] was conceived.
    (vi)    [E.U.] was not truthful to the Michigan Court naming
    [Duran] as the father of [the child].
    3
    (vii)    [E.U.] failed to disclose to the child support offices in
    Michigan and Texas when she knew or should have
    known that [Duran] was not the father of [the child].
    (viii)    [E.U.] committed fraud in informing the child support
    offices in Michigan and Texas that [Duran] was the
    father of [the child] when she knew that he wasn’t.
    Therefore, the Court finds that [E.U.], the mother of the child subject
    to this suit, has committed fraud by claiming that [Duran] was the biological
    father of [the child] when she knew that he was not the father of the child
    and obtaining child support court order ordering [Duran] to pay child support
    for a child that he is not legally obligated to support.
    The trial court ordered that “based on the guiding principles of equity, . . . the
    current balance owed by [Duran] to [E.U.] on child support arrearages is $0.00.” The trial
    court ordered that Duran pay E.U. $0.00 for the child support arrearages. This appeal
    followed.
    II.     DISCUSSION
    By its sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
    concluding that Duran did not have to pay the child support arrearages incurred prior to
    termination of the parent-child relationship because, among other things, the plain
    language of section 161.005(i) requires that the trial court leave in place the arrearages
    accrued as of the date of the termination order.2 See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.005.
    Duran responds that E.U. should not be allowed to profit from her fraud and that the trial
    court had authority, under principles of equity, to order that he pay nothing in child support
    arrearages. Duran argues that allowing collection of the child support arrearages violates
    public policy and principles of equity.
    A.     Standard of Review
    2   Appellant does not challenge the termination of Duran’s parental rights to the child.
    4
    An order regarding child support will not be overturned unless the
    trial court clearly abused its discretion. The test for abuse of discretion is
    whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or
    principles; in other words, whether the act was arbitrary or unreasonable.
    A trial court’s failure to analyze or apply the law correctly constitutes an
    abuse of discretion.
    Office of the Attorney Gen. v. Buhrle, 
    210 S.W.3d 714
    , 717 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi
    2006, pet. denied) (internal citations omitted).
    B.     Section 161.005 of the Texas Family Code
    Under Texas law, a man who was misled into believing that he was the biological
    father of a child may petition the court to terminate the existing parent-child relationship.
    See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 161.005(c)(2). Under section 161.005(c), the man who files
    a petition to terminate the parent-child relationship, must allege facts that show that (1)
    he is not the genetic father of the child, and (2) he failed to contest his parentage at the
    prior hearing or signed an acknowledgment of paternity because, based on
    misrepresentations, he believed that he was the child’s genetic father. 
    Id. Once the
    trial
    court determines that the man has made a prima facie case for termination of the parent-
    child relationship by doing the above, the trial court must order genetic testing. 
    Id. § 161.005(f).
    The trial court must then terminate the parent-child relationship if the genetic
    tests exclude the man as the child’s genetic father. 
    Id. § 161.005(h).
    The statute requires
    that once the parent-child relationship has been terminated under 161.005(h), the man
    no longer has an obligation to pay future child support. 
    Id. § 161.005(i)
    (emphasis added).
    In addition, it states, “The order does not affect the petitioner’s obligations for support of
    the child incurred before that date. Those obligations are enforceable until satisfied by
    any means available for the enforcement of child support other than contempt.” 
    Id. (emphasis added).
    5
    C.     The Texas Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”)
    The UIFSA codified in the family code sets out the procedures for enforcement of
    foreign child support orders. 
    Buhrle, 210 S.W.3d at 717
    . Specifically, section 159.604(a)
    states that:
    (a)   Except as provided by Subsection (d), the law of the issuing
    state governs:
    (1)     the nature, extent, amount, and duration of
    current payments under a registered support
    order;
    (2)     the computation and payment of arrearages and
    accrual of interest on the arrearages under the
    support order; and
    (3)     the existence and satisfaction of             other
    obligations under the support order.
    TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 159.604(a). Subsection (d) states,
    After a tribunal of this or another state determines which order is the
    controlling order and issues an order consolidating arrearages, if any, the
    tribunal of this state shall prospectively apply the law of the state issuing the
    controlling order, including that state’s law on interest on arrearages, current
    and future support, and consolidated arrearages.
    Id.; 
    Buhrle, 210 S.W.3d at 717
    .
    UIFSA “provides that a party may register an out-of-state support order or income-
    withholding order in Texas for enforcement. Registration of another state’s support order
    occurs when the registering party files the order with Texas’s registering tribunal, which
    enforces the order just as if a Texas court originally issued it.” 
    Buhrle, 210 S.W.3d at 717
    .
    A non-registering party who opposes registration of the out-of-state support order in
    Texas must request a hearing within twenty days. 
    Id. In addition,
    “[c]onfirmation of a
    registered order precludes further contest of the [out-of-state] order with respect to any
    6
    matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration. 
    Id. (citing TEX.
    FAM. CODE
    ANN. § 159.608).
    Here, the trial court concluded that based on the guiding principles of equity, Duran
    is not responsible for any child support arrearages because under common law fraud,
    E.U. misrepresented to Duran that he was the child’s father and Duran relied on that
    misrepresentation. The trial court found that a Michigan court had ordered Duran to pay
    the child support and that E.U. had not been truthful to the Michigan court when she
    named Duran as the father. No evidence was presented that this Michigan child support
    order had been registered in Texas or that Texas had authority to enforce this order
    pursuant to the UIFSA. See 
    id. Thus, there
    is nothing in the record to establish that
    Duran was precluded from contesting the Michigan order on the basis of fraud. See 
    id. at 718
    (concluding that the mother could not contest the validity or enforcement of the
    foreign state’s child support order because the order had been confirmed in Texas). In
    addition, the trial court was required to look at Michigan law to determine the amount of
    arrearages owed. See 
    id. (citing TEX.
    FAM. CODE ANN. § 159.604(a)(2)). Accordingly, the
    trial court was precluded from applying section 161.005(i) because it is Texas law and
    here the child support order was issued under Michigan law. See 
    id. Moreover, appellant
    provided no evidence that under Michigan law, a father who petitions to terminate the
    parent-child relationship due to fraud is obligated to pay past child support or that
    Michigan has a statute such as 161.005(i). Thus, we cannot conclude that the trial court
    abused its discretion when it determined that section 161.005(i) does not apply in this
    case and applied his inherent equitable powers to determine that due to E.U.’s fraud,
    7
    Duran owes no past child support.3 See 
    id. (applying Georgia
    law to a case involving a
    Georgia child support order). We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
    III.    CONCLUSION
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /s/ Rogelio Valdez
    ROGELIO VALDEZ
    Chief Justice
    Delivered and filed the
    28th day of May, 2015.
    3 Appellant does not argue, in the alternative, that the trial court abused its discretion by applying
    equitable principles if section 161.005(i) does not apply.
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-13-00423-CV

Filed Date: 5/28/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015