in Re Kelsi M. Baggett ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed September 30, 2014
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-14-00213-CV
    __________
    IN RE KELSI MICHELLE BAGGETT
    Original Mandamus Proceeding
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Relator, Kelsi Michelle Baggett, has brought a mandamus action against the
    Honorable Carter T. Schildknecht, Judge of the 106th District Court of Gaines
    County, Texas. This original proceeding arises out of a suit affecting the parent-
    child relationship filed by the real party in interest, Ricky Therwhanger. Baggett
    alleges that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to dismiss for lack of
    jurisdiction and her motion for summary judgment, when it excluded public record
    and vital-statistics evidence, and when it granted Therwhanger an exception to the
    statute of limitations.   Specifically, Baggett petitions this court for a writ of
    mandamus instructing the trial court to vacate its order for genetic testing. Baggett
    claims that Therwhanger failed to bring his suit within the four-year statute of
    limitations period.
    In reviewing a petition for writ of mandamus, we look to whether the trial
    court committed a clear abuse of discretion and, if so, whether there is an adequate
    remedy by appeal.      Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 839 (Tex. 1992).
    Generally, the Family Code prohibits a person from bringing a suit to adjudicate
    parentage outside the four-year statute of limitations when a child has a presumed,
    acknowledged, or adjudicated father.      TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 160.607(a),
    160.609(b) (West 2014). However, when a child does not have a presumed,
    acknowledged, or adjudicated father, there is no time limitation for a person to file
    suit. 
    Id. § 160.606.
    A party must be entitled to maintain a suit to adjudicate
    parentage before a trial court can order genetic testing. In re Rodriguez, 
    248 S.W.3d 444
    , 450–51 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding).              Once the
    genetic testing is ordered and the results are released, the harm cannot be undone
    and, thus, there is no adequate remedy at law. 
    Id. at 454.
          Here, Baggett claimed that the child had an acknowledged father and that
    Therwhanger did not file suit within the required time limit. After reviewing the
    record, we find that Baggett did not present admissible evidence to show that the
    child had an acknowledged father. During the hearing on Baggett’s motion to
    dismiss and motion for summary judgment, Baggett offered into evidence an
    acknowledgement of paternity, which she had obtained from the hospital.
    Therwhanger objected on the ground that it was hearsay and not properly
    authenticated under the business records exception. See TEX. R. EVID. 803(6). The
    trial court sustained Therwhanger’s objection.        Baggett did not attach the
    acknowledgement to her motion to dismiss or her motion for summary judgment,
    nor did she file a business records affidavit fourteen days before the hearing as
    2
    required under TEX. R. EVID. 902(10) as it existed at the time. 1 Furthermore,
    Baggett did not offer a certified copy of the acknowledgment from the bureau of
    vital statistics.     See TEX. R. EVID. 803(8), 803(9), 902(4); see also FAM.
    §§ 160.301–.313.        The trial court did not permit Baggett to testify from the
    unauthenticated acknowledgment; thus, Baggett was unable to establish that the
    child had an acknowledged father.
    Because Baggett failed to establish that the child had a presumed,
    acknowledged, or adjudicated father, she failed to prove that Therwhanger was
    required to file suit within the four-year statute of limitations. See FAM. § 160.606.
    Therefore, the trial court did not err when it denied Baggett’s motion to dismiss
    and her motion for summary judgment and when it ordered genetic testing.
    We deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
    PER CURIAM
    September 30, 2014
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    1
    We note that Rule 902(10), which relates to self-authentication, has recently been amended to
    delete the requirement that a business record accompanied by an affidavit be filed with the trial court
    prior to trial. The amendment applies only to cases filed after September 1, 2014.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-14-00213-CV

Filed Date: 9/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014