In The Interest of J.L.J., A Child, 14-25-00872-CV, February 12, 2026.
On appeal from the 313th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a parent’s unequivocal judicial admission in open court—confirming the voluntary execution and understanding of an irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment—satisfies the evidentiary requirements of Texas Family Code Section 161.001(b)(1)(K). The court further determined that such a testimonial confirmation waives subsequent technical challenges to the digital notarization process or the physical presence of witnesses required under Section 161.103.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision reinforces the finality of voluntary relinquishment affidavits when paired with a trial court colloquy. For practitioners, it highlights that a “prove-up” in open court serves as a powerful shield against post-judgment attacks on the technical validity of an affidavit. Even where a digital signature or remote notarization process is later challenged as non-compliant with the strictures of the Texas Family Code, a parent’s direct testimony acknowledging the signature and its consequences creates a binding judicial admission that can cure procedural defects.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Mother gave birth to a child, J.L.J. (“Jude”), who tested positive for methamphetamines at birth. Following the failure of a safety plan and the death of the child’s alleged father, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) sought to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The day before the scheduled trial, Mother executed a digital “Irrevocable Affidavit of Voluntary Relinquishment of Parental Rights.” At the commencement of the trial, Mother appeared with counsel. The trial judge engaged Mother in a direct colloquy, asking if she understood the document she signed and the consequences thereof. Mother answered affirmatively, stating she knew her son would have a “better life” and prayed the placement would take him. Following this exchange, Mother asked to be excused. The trial court subsequently signed an agreed decree of termination. Mother later moved for a new trial, supported by an affidavit from the notary, alleging the relinquishment was invalid because she did not appear before the notary in person, no oath was administered, and the digital signature process failed to meet statutory standards.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed: (1) whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under Section 161.001(b)(1)(K) in light of the alleged technical defects in the affidavit’s execution; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mother’s motion for new trial; and (3) whether the evidence supported the finding that termination was in the child’s best interest.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Family Code Section 161.103, which mandates that an affidavit of relinquishment be signed after the birth of the child, witnessed by two credible persons, and verified before a person authorized to take oaths. Under Section 161.001(b)(1)(K), a court may terminate parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent executed an irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment as provided by Section 161.103. The court also relied on the doctrine of judicial admissions—statements made in a judicial proceeding that are deliberate, clear, and unequivocal, which dispense with the need for further evidence of the admitted fact and bar the admitting party from later disputing it.
Application
The court’s analysis focused on the interplay between the formal requirements of Section 161.103 and the Mother’s testimony during the trial. The court reasoned that the primary purpose of the statutory requirements for relinquishment affidavits is to ensure the parent’s act is voluntary and informed. When Mother confirmed to the trial judge that she signed the affidavit, understood it, and swore to it, her statements rose to the level of a judicial admission. This admission effectively waived any complaints regarding the technicalities of the digital signature or the notary’s physical absence.
Regarding the motion for new trial, the court found no abuse of discretion because the trial court was entitled to rely on the Mother’s live testimony over the subsequent affidavit from the notary. Finally, the court found the “best interest” finding supported by the child’s drug exposure at birth and the Mother’s admitted drug use, balanced against the child’s need for stability.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the Mother’s testimony in open court constituted a judicial admission that she signed the affidavit of relinquishment and understood its finality. This admission was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding under Section 161.001(b)(1)(K), regardless of any underlying technical failures in the notarization or witnessing of the digital document.
The court further held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial because the Mother’s own trial testimony provided clear and convincing evidence of the voluntary nature of the relinquishment, which the trial court was free to credit over the notary’s subsequent claims of procedural irregularity.
Practical Application
For litigators, this case serves as a reminder that the record made at the time of the decree is paramount. If you are representing the Department or an adopting party, always insist on a brief on-the-record colloquy where the parent identifies their signature and confirms they signed the document voluntarily. This “double-layer” approach—affidavit plus judicial admission—renders the termination virtually bulletproof against technical challenges. For parental counsel, if there are legitimate grounds to challenge an affidavit’s execution, the parent must be cautioned that any confirmation in open court will likely waive those defects.
Checklists
Securing an Enforceable Relinquishment
- Verify the affidavit contains the specific mandatory language required by Tex. Fam. Code § 161.103.
- Ensure two credible witnesses are physically present and their signatures are contemporaneous with the parent’s.
- If using digital signatures, ensure the notary’s verification complies with the Texas Government Code’s requirements for online notarization if the parties are not physically co-located.
- Conduct a “prove-up” colloquy on the record asking the parent:
- “Did you sign this specific document?”
- “Did you sign it of your own free will?”
- “Do you understand that this is final and irrevocable?”
- “Are you asking the court to accept this affidavit and terminate your rights today?”
Defending Against a Motion for New Trial
- Secure the trial transcript immediately to identify any judicial admissions made by the parent.
- Compare the parent’s trial testimony with the allegations in the motion for new trial for direct contradictions.
- Argue that any technical defect in the affidavit was cured or waived by the judicial admission in open court.
- Ensure the “best interest” evidence (e.g., drug use, instability) is fully developed in the record as an independent basis for affirming the decree.
Citation
In the Interest of J.L.J., a Child, No. 14-25-00872-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 12, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~fac3bfce-db00-4e2b-8c4d-7e8fb26d0908~~
Share this content: