Fort Worth Court Affirms Termination of Inmate Father’s Parental Rights Despite Nonappearance by Phone

In the Interest of A.Z., a Child, 02-25-00573-CV, March 26, 2026.

On appeal from 325th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Synopsis

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals affirmed termination of an incarcerated father’s parental rights where the trial court provided notice and a call-in number for telephonic appearance, but the father did not timely call in and his mailed request for alternative arrangements arrived after the hearing. The court also rejected his personal-jurisdiction attack (raised after he had answered) and held the denial of his motion for new trial was not reversible under the post-answer default standard.

Relevance to Family Law

Private termination and SAPCR dockets regularly involve pro se litigants—sometimes incarcerated—and this opinion is a reminder that “access to courts” problems are often won or lost on the record you build about notice, logistics, and timing. Even outside termination, the same dynamic shows up in modification trials, enforcement hearings, and even divorce trials with incarcerated parties: if the court gives a workable remote-access pathway and the party does not timely secure the necessary prison-side arrangements, the appellate posture will usually favor the judgment. For family-law litigators, the case is also a jurisdiction/waiver cautionary tale—personal jurisdiction arguments can be forfeited by participation (answering, litigating) rather than timely special appearance practice.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Mother filed a private SAPCR seeking termination of Father’s parental rights. Father was incarcerated (pro se) following a conviction for sexual assault of a child. The case was set for final trial, and the trial court sent Father written notice that included a telephone number to call the bailiff so he could appear telephonically. Father received the notice and did not object to the instructions or request a different access protocol at that time.

Nine days before trial, Father mailed a “Request to Appear via Telephone,” asking the court to direct staff to contact his prison unit so he could be made available on the hearing date. The clerk did not receive the request until after the final hearing had already occurred. When the case was called, the court took judicial notice of the notice letter and confirmed no call had been received at the bailiff’s number; after waiting past the setting, the court proceeded.

At trial, Mother presented testimony (including from Father’s cousin and Mother’s other daughter/stepdaughter) describing sexual misconduct by Father against minors, and the court admitted the criminal judgment reflecting Father’s guilty plea. The trial court declined to find endangerment by clear and convincing evidence but did find predicate grounds under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(F) (failure to support) and (L) (conviction for a listed offense, including Penal Code § 22.011), and found termination in the child’s best interest.

Father moved for new trial, arguing (i) denial of meaningful access because he was not allowed to appear by phone, (ii) “false” testimony, and (iii) lack of jurisdiction because both parents were noncitizens. The trial court denied the motion, and Father appealed.

Issues Decided

• Whether the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Father, Mother, and the child based on the parents’ alleged noncitizenship status and related jurisdictional theories.
• Whether proceeding with final trial in Father’s nonappearance violated his constitutional/right-of-access-to-courts protections given incarceration, pro se status, notice with a call-in number, and a mailed request received after the hearing.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s motion for new trial after a post-answer default termination judgment (including whether a hearing on the motion was required).

Rules Applied

• Personal jurisdiction can be waived by appearance/participation; a party may consent expressly or impliedly. The court treated Father’s jurisdiction attack as inconsistent with his participation (including answering) and addressed jurisdiction as a waivable defect rather than a structural nullity.
• Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. See Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005).
• Post-answer default new trial standard (Craddock/Dolgencorp framework): the movant must show (1) failure to appear was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, but accident or mistake; (2) a meritorious defense; and (3) granting a new trial will not cause delay or otherwise injure the plaintiff. See Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 925–26 (Tex. 2009).
• Termination predicates and best-interest: Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (including subsections (F) and (L)) and § 161.001(b)(2) (best interest).
• Private termination appellate counsel is discretionary (and was denied on abatement) under Tex. Fam. Code § 107.021.

Application

On personal jurisdiction, the court treated Father’s argument (noncitizenship-based) as a waivable personal-jurisdiction complaint, not a nonwaivable subject-matter defect. Having answered and participated, Father was not positioned to invalidate the judgment on a belated personal-jurisdiction theory. The court began its analysis from the premise that personal jurisdiction is “vital” to a valid judgment—but is also something a litigant can waive by consenting to the court’s authority.

On access to courts, the court’s analysis centered on what the trial court did provide: advance notice of the final setting and a specific call-in number to the bailiff for telephonic appearance. Father received that notice, filed no timely objection, and did not timely secure alternative arrangements that would have required coordination with the prison unit. His mailed request, although dated before trial, arrived after the hearing and therefore did not obligate the trial court to halt the proceeding or retrofit a different access method on the spot—particularly when the court waited past the setting and confirmed no inbound call had been received.

On the motion for new trial, the court applied the post-answer default framework and held Father did not carry the burden necessary to show reversible error in the denial. Even crediting that incarceration complicates participation, the record supported the conclusion that Father had notice and a workable means to appear, and that his failure to use it (or to timely obtain an alternative protocol) did not compel a new trial. The court also rejected Father’s attempt to repackage credibility disputes as a basis for new trial relief in this procedural posture.

Holding

The court affirmed the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. Father’s jurisdictional complaints did not undermine the judgment because personal jurisdiction is waivable and the record reflected participation inconsistent with a timely jurisdictional challenge.

The court further held that the trial court did not violate Father’s right of access to the courts by proceeding with the final hearing after providing notice and a call-in number. The failure to appear was attributable to Father’s not calling in and not timely securing prison-side arrangements, and the belatedly received mailed request did not render the hearing fundamentally unfair.

Finally, the court held the trial court did not reversibly err by denying Father’s motion for new trial under the post-answer default standard. Father did not establish the necessary elements to compel a new trial, and the appellate court affirmed the termination order.

Practical Application

For Texas family-law litigators, this memorandum opinion is most useful as a record-building and procedure case—particularly in private termination, modifications, and high-conflict SAPCRs involving incarcerated parents.

• If you represent the petitioner (or conservator seeking relief): treat remote-access logistics as an evidentiary and appellate issue. Get the notice letter admitted or judicially noticed, confirm on the record the call-in number, when/where it was sent, delivery confirmation, and that the bailiff/coordination line did not receive a call. If the other side later claims they asked for special arrangements, nail down receipt timing and whether the request was set for hearing.
• If you represent the incarcerated parent (or are appointed amicus/ad litem in a case where one parent is incarcerated): do not rely on “I mailed it.” File early, confirm receipt, and obtain a signed order that specifies the telephonic appearance protocol and prison contact procedures (unit law library, OIC, or classification contact) well before trial. If the notice gives you a call-in number, treat it as a minimum baseline—not an assurance that the prison will make the inmate available without advance coordination.
• In any post-answer default scenario: frame your motion for new trial like a Dolgencorp/Craddock motion, supported by proof. Conclusory claims about access problems and “false testimony” rarely substitute for a developed record showing (1) accident/mistake (not indifference), (2) a meritorious defense with specific facts, and (3) no undue injury/delay.

Checklists

Incarcerated-Party Telephonic Appearance (Pretrial)

• File a written motion for telephonic appearance immediately upon receiving the setting.
• Request a written order specifying: date/time, dial-in number, participant PIN (if any), and who initiates the call.
• Include prison-unit contact information and request the order direct the unit to produce the inmate at the specified time.
• Confirm receipt by the clerk and coordinator; obtain file-stamped copies.
• Follow up with the prison unit (law library/classification) to confirm the order was received and calendared.
• If the notice provides a call-in number, clarify whether the inmate must place the call or whether the court will call the unit.

Petitioner’s Record-Building to Defeat an “Access to Courts” Complaint

• Ensure the notice of final hearing includes telephonic instructions and is sent via trackable mail when possible.
• At the start of trial, offer (or request judicial notice of) the notice letter, return receipt, and docket entries reflecting service.
• Put on the record: the time the case was called, how long the court waited, and that no call was received.
• If a late request appears, establish on the record the file-stamp time and that it was not available to the court before proceeding.
• Preserve best-interest and predicate-ground proof as if fully contested (avoid “default-proof” shortcuts).

Post-Answer Default: Motion for New Trial (Defense-Side Essentials)

• Address each Dolgencorp/Craddock element explicitly.
• Attach evidence (sworn declaration/affidavit) explaining the nonappearance with dates, steps taken, and prison constraints.
• “Set up” a meritorious defense with specific admissible facts (not general denials).
• Propose a prompt reset date and explain why a new trial will not injure the other party.
• Request an evidentiary hearing and obtain a ruling; ensure the reporter’s record captures the hearing if held.

Citation

In the Interest of A.Z., a Child, No. 02-25-00573-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 26, 2026) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~1300281f-fee7-4152-a510-4232af9fea05~~