Opinion
No. 05-04-00266-CV
Opinion issued November 30, 2004.
On Appeal from the 304th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-01357-W.
Affirmed.
Before Justices BRIDGES, RICHTER, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lenise Harris appeals the trial court's denial of her bill of review seeking to set aside the termination of her parental rights to W.M. In a single issue, Harris argues the trial court erred in denying her bill of review. We affirm the trial court's order denying Harris' bill of review.
The facts of the underlying case are well known to the parties, and only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. Child Protective Services (CPS) filed a petition to terminate appellant's parental rights in October 2002. In March 2003, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and an amended petition for termination was filed in April 2003. On July 3, 2003, the trial court entered a decree of termination which incorporated by reference the terms of the settlement agreement. On December 18, 2003, appellant filed a bill of review seeking to have the termination decree set aside because the terms of the settlement agreement had failed. The trial court denied appellant's bill of review and ordered the cessation of appellant's temporary visitation of her child, W.M. This appeal followed.
A bill of review is an equitable proceeding brought by a party seeking to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer subject to challenge by a motion for new trial or appeal. Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex. 1998). To set aside a judgment by bill of review, the petitioner must ordinarily plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) that he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of his opponent, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own. Id. In reviewing a bill of review, every presumption is indulged in favor of the court's ruling, which will not be disturbed unless it is affirmatively shown that there was an abuse of judicial discretion. Interaction, Inc./State v. State/Interaction, Inc., 17 S.W.3d 775, 778 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied). We have reviewed the record in this case, and we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's bill of review. See Caldwell, 975 S.W.2d at 537; Interaction, 17 S.W.3d at 778. We overrule appellant's sole issue.
We affirm the trial court's order denying appellant's bill of review.