Trevino v. Garcia

6 Citing cases

  1. Osterkamp v. Stiles

    235 P.3d 193 (Alaska 2010)   Cited 4 times

    But we note that apparently no jurisdiction has applied equitable adoption to establish parental rights. Cf. Hermanson v. Hermanson, 110 Nev. 1400, 887 P.2d 1241, 1245 (1994) (holding that the doctrine of equitable adoption does not apply in an action to determine custody); Pierce v. Pierce, 198 Mont. 255, 645 P.2d 1353, 1355 (1982) (holding that the doctrine of equitable adoption has no application to an action in which a stepfather seeks custody against the wishes of the child's mother); Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147, 148-49 (Tex. 1982) (holding that adoption by estoppel is inapplicable to establishing custodial rights). During the evidentiary hearing, in response to the question, "So Kattaryna never said to you unequivocally, Ken, I con[sent] to your adoption of [Simon]?

  2. Guardianship of Zeke

    422 Mass. 438 (Mass. 1996)   Cited 12 times

    Because we have concluded that Massachusetts courts do not have jurisdiction under § 2 ( a), we do not reach whether, in these circumstances, Massachusetts courts would be prohibited by § 2 ( d) from exercising jurisdiction that was otherwise proper under § 2 ( a). We note, however, that under Texas law, a habeas corpus proceeding is not a proceeding "for the purpose of making a custody determination," as that term is used in G.L.c. 209B, § 2 ( d). Greene v. Schuble, 654 S.W.2d 436, 438 (Tex. 1983) ("The office of habeas corpus is limited to restoring possession of the children to the person legally entitled to present possession, and may not be used to relitigate custody"); Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex. 1982) ("A habeas corpus proceeding will not be used to determine custody of a child"); Perry v. Scoggins, 626 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. 1981) ("The habeas corpus proceeding did not give the El Paso court jurisdiction over a custody determination of this child, because a habeas corpus proceeding is not a 'suit affecting the parent-child relationship'"); Garza v. Schilling, 576 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Tex. Ct. App. 1978) ("[§] 14.10 of the Family Code overruled the prior case law which previously permitted a habeas corpus proceeding to put the right of custody in issue"); Trader v. Dear, 565 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. 1978) (same). General Laws c. 209B, § 2 ( d) (1994 ed.), provides: "A court of the commonwealth shall not exercise jurisdiction in any custody proceeding commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another state where such court of that state is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section for the purpose of making a custody determination, except in accor

  3. Rodriguez v. McFall

    658 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    We have held that under section 14.10(e), absent an immediate serious danger to the child, a parent is entitled to the immediate, automatic and ministerial grant of possession of the child as against a non-parent. Armstrong v. Reiter, 628 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1982); Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. 1982). The record here shows no issue was raised of a serious immediate question concerning the welfare of the child.

  4. In re Marriage of Eilers

    205 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App. 2006)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that the wife overcame presumption against spousal maintenance because evidence that she had a low paying job and that she had explored other possible jobs in the vicinity provided sufficient evidence of diligence

    Thus, Texas courts have held that a person may not be awarded managing conservatorship of a child under a theory of equitable adoption. See Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147, 148-49 (Tex. 1982) (orig. proceeding); T.W.E., 828 S.W.2d at 809.

  5. Geramifar v. Geramifar

    113 Md. App. 495 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997)   Cited 14 times
    Indicating that natural parents were Iranian

    Our review of the approach taken by other jurisdictions reveals that they differ greatly. While some jurisdictions implicitly recognize that the doctrine of equitable adoption entitles an equitably adopted child to be supported by its adoptive parent, Sargeant v. Sargeant, 88 Nev. 223, 495 P.2d 618 (1972); Young v. Young, 545 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Civ.App. 1st Dist. 1976); Frye v. Frye, 103 Nev. 301, 738 P.2d 505 (1987), other jurisdictions have held to the contrary, see, Fuller v. Fuller, 247 A.2d 767 (D.C.App. 1968) (declining to recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption for any purposes); Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. 1982) (declining to recognize the doctrine of equitable adoption where state statute required a judicial order for adoption).[3] As we have said, the parties journeyed to the Republic of Iran for the purpose of obtaining guardianship of Ashkan for the purpose of adopting him in the United States. While in Iran, they visited the appropriate agency, acquired Ashkan, and followed the required procedures to obtain guardianship of Ashkan and returned to the United States.

  6. Flynn v. State

    667 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. App. 1984)   Cited 7 times
    In Flynn v. State, 667 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1984), aff'd on other grounds. 707 S.W.2d 87 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986), the court of appeals extended the application of equitable adoption to a case outside the Probate Code.

    The rules applicable to adoption are to be liberally construed, strict construction and scrutiny to be applied only in the case of a non-consenting natural parent. Trevino v. Garcia, 627 S.W.2d 147 (Tex. 1982); Cawley v. Allums, 518 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1975). While an agreement to adopt is an essential element of equitable adoption, the agreement need not be proven by direct evidence.