Section 161.002(b)(3) Paternity-Registry Termination | In re T.S.L. (2026)

In the Interest of T.S.L., a Child, 04-26-00070-CV, July 22, 2026.

On appeal from 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Synopsis

Termination was affirmed because the alleged father challenged only best interest and did not attack the trial court’s separate finding under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(3) that he failed to register with the paternity registry or otherwise acknowledge paternity. The Fourth Court reiterated that section 161.002(b)(3) is an independent termination ground for alleged fathers of children under one year old at filing, and that ground does not require proof of best interest.

Relevance to Family Law

Although this is a termination case, the opinion has broader consequences for Texas family-law litigation involving paternity, conservatorship positioning, and appellate preservation. In SAPCRs, divorces with parentage disputes, and cases involving nonmarital children, counsel must identify early whether a client is merely an alleged father, whether Chapter 160 registry issues are in play, and whether paternity has been formally acknowledged or adjudicated. Strategically, the case also reinforces a broader appellate rule that applies across family litigation: if a judgment rests on multiple independent grounds, an appellant must challenge all dispositive grounds or risk automatic affirmance regardless of the merits of the issue actually briefed.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The Department filed its petition on April 8, 2024, seeking termination of both parents’ rights. The child was under one year old when suit was filed. As the case progressed, Mother successfully completed services and achieved reunification through a monitored return, ultimately receiving sole managing conservatorship. The Department nevertheless continued to seek termination of Father’s rights.

Father’s status was critical. He was treated as an alleged father, not an adjudicated or acknowledged father. The evidence showed he had not taken DNA testing to establish paternity, had not filed with the paternity registry, and did not acknowledge paternity under oath. At trial, Father testified that he did not want to “judicially legitimate” his paternity. The trial court also took judicial notice of the paternity-registry search certificate in the clerk’s record.

The trial court terminated Father’s rights under section 161.002(b)(3), based on his failure to assert or acknowledge paternity when the child was under one year old at filing. In the alternative, the trial court found predicate grounds under section 161.001(b)(1)(E), (L), and (P), and also found termination to be in the child’s best interest. On appeal, Father challenged the denial of his oral motion for continuance and the sufficiency of the evidence on best interest. He did not challenge the section 161.002(b)(3) finding.

Issues Decided

• Whether the court of appeals could affirm termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(3) when Father challenged only best interest and did not challenge the finding that he failed to register with the paternity registry or otherwise acknowledge paternity.
• Whether termination under section 161.002(b)(3) requires a separate best-interest finding.
• Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Father’s oral motion for continuance made at the beginning of trial.

Rules Applied

The court relied primarily on the following authorities:

• Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(3), which permits termination of an alleged father’s rights if the child was under one year of age when the termination petition was filed and the alleged father did not register with the paternity registry under Chapter 160.
• In re S.J.R.-Z., 537 S.W.3d 677, 682–83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied), holding that termination for failure to legitimate paternity is an independent basis for termination and does not require proof that termination is in the child’s best interest.
• The appellate principle that an appellant must challenge every independent ground supporting the judgment; otherwise, the unchallenged ground supports affirmance.
• Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 251, requiring that a motion for continuance be supported by sufficient cause, typically in writing and supported by affidavit unless by consent or operation of law.
• The dismissal framework in Texas Family Code sections 263.401 and 263.403, which limits a trial court’s jurisdiction in Department cases and underscores the permanency concerns that bear on continuance requests.

Application

The court began with the appellate posture rather than the merits of Father’s best-interest complaint. That framing mattered. The trial court had terminated Father’s rights on more than one basis, including section 161.002(b)(3). Because Father did not challenge that finding, the court treated it as valid for appellate purposes. From there, the result was straightforward under existing San Antonio authority: if one independent termination ground stands unchallenged, the appellate court affirms without reaching the challenged ground.

The opinion underscores the importance of Father’s status as an alleged father. He had not formalized paternity through DNA adjudication, had not filed with the registry, and had affirmatively testified that he did not want to legitimate paternity. Those facts aligned precisely with section 161.002(b)(3). The child’s age at filing completed the statutory fit. Once those elements were satisfied, the court treated section 161.002(b)(3) as a complete and independent basis for termination.

That, in turn, disposed of Father’s best-interest issue. The court reiterated that termination under section 161.002(b)(3), unlike ordinary section 161.001 terminations, does not require proof of best interest. So even if Father had presented a potentially viable best-interest challenge, it would not defeat affirmance because it did not undermine the unchallenged 161.002(b)(3) ground.

On the continuance issue, the court applied familiar but unforgiving preservation and procedure principles. Father made an oral “not ready” request at trial, effectively seeking a continuance so he could pursue services after possible parole. The court held denial was well within the trial court’s discretion because the request failed Rule 251: it was not written, verified, or supported by affidavit. The context also mattered. Trial was set just before the case’s dismissal date, after an extension and monitored return had already pushed the jurisdictional deadline to January 12, 2026. Granting the continuance would have jeopardized the court’s jurisdiction and delayed permanency for the child.

Holding

The Fourth Court held that termination under Texas Family Code section 161.002(b)(3) is an independent ground for terminating an alleged father’s rights when the child was under one year old at the time of filing and the father failed to register with the paternity registry. Because Father did not challenge that finding on appeal, the court was required to affirm on that unchallenged basis.

The court further held that section 161.002(b)(3) does not require a best-interest finding. As a result, Father’s appellate attack on best interest did not present a basis for reversal once the independent section 161.002(b)(3) ground remained intact.

Separately, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s oral motion for continuance. The motion did not comply with Rule 251, the case was near its mandatory dismissal deadline, and the trial court reasonably considered the child’s interest in permanency and the risk of losing jurisdiction.

Practical Application

For trial lawyers representing the Department, a managing conservator, or a parent aligned with termination, T.S.L. is a reminder to plead and prove section 161.002(b)(3) whenever the facts support it. In the alleged-father context, that ground can substantially simplify both trial presentation and appellate defense. The record should clearly establish the child’s age at filing, the father’s alleged-father status, the paternity-registry search result, and the absence of acknowledgment or adjudication.

For counsel representing fathers, the case is a warning that parentage status cannot be treated as a secondary issue. In many cases, lawyers focus on service plans, incarceration, or best-interest evidence while overlooking the threshold problem that the client is still only an alleged father. That is dangerous. If the client has not registered, acknowledged, or adjudicated paternity, section 161.002(b)(3) may become the cleanest path to termination, and a best-interest argument alone will not rescue the appeal.

The opinion also has practical significance beyond termination cases. In divorce and SAPCR litigation, unresolved paternity can affect standing, conservatorship claims, child support exposure, inheritance-related issues, and strategic leverage. Early attention to Chapter 160 is not merely technical compliance; it can determine whether a client participates as a legal parent or remains vulnerable as an alleged father.

Appellate specialists should also view T.S.L. as another strong statement from the Fourth Court on briefing all independent grounds. If the judgment includes multiple predicates, do not assume that challenging the most fact-intensive or equitable issue will suffice. A narrow issue selection may create an affirmance path the appellee can exploit immediately.

Checklists

Alleged-Father Intake Checklist

• Determine immediately whether the client is an alleged, acknowledged, presumed, or adjudicated father.
• Confirm the child’s date of birth and compare it to the petition filing date.
• Investigate whether a notice of intent to claim paternity was filed in the Chapter 160 paternity registry.
• Obtain any acknowledgment of paternity, denial of paternity, or prior adjudication documents.
• Assess whether DNA testing has been requested, completed, or strategically deferred.
• Advise the client in writing about the risks of remaining only an alleged father.

Trial Preparation Checklist for Section 161.002(b)(3)

• Plead section 161.002(b)(3) expressly if the facts support it.
• Introduce or secure judicial notice of the paternity-registry search certificate.
• Prove the child was under one year old when the petition was filed.
• Establish that the respondent is only an alleged father.
• Develop testimony or documentary proof showing the absence of acknowledgment or adjudication.
• Anticipate and rebut any attempt by the alleged father to cure status defects late in the case.

Appellate Briefing Checklist for Fathers

• Challenge every independent termination ground stated in the decree.
• Address section 161.002(b)(3) separately and directly if it appears in the order.
• Do not rely solely on a best-interest challenge where an alleged-father ground exists.
• Verify whether the decree contains alternative predicate findings under both sections 161.001 and 161.002.
• Review whether the record contains a paternity-registry certificate and testimony about acknowledgment.
• Frame issues to attack both legal sufficiency and the legal applicability of the alleged-father ground where warranted.

Continuance Preservation Checklist

• File the motion for continuance in writing.
• Support the motion with a verification or affidavit as required by Rule 251.
• State specific facts constituting sufficient cause, not general readiness complaints.
• Address the dismissal date under sections 263.401 and 263.403.
• Explain why the requested delay will not defeat jurisdiction or, if it implicates jurisdiction, present a legally supported solution.
• Create a record showing diligence, materiality of the delay, and prejudice from denial.

SAPCR and Divorce Paternity Risk Checklist

• Confirm legal father status at the outset of any suit involving a nonmarital child.
• Evaluate whether parentage must be adjudicated before pursuing conservatorship relief.
• Do not assume biological fatherhood alone confers litigation protection.
• Consider whether registry, acknowledgment, or adjudication issues may affect standing or final relief.
• Coordinate paternity strategy with support, possession, conservatorship, and appellate preservation goals.

Citation

In the Interest of T.S.L., a Child, No. 04-26-00070-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 22, 2026, mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~3cff5139-2b68-40b9-bf71-3d74e09fa3d0~~