Lutheran Social Service, Inc. v. Farris
Court of Appeals of Texas
1DissentPhillips, Chief Justice
I respectfully dissent from the manner in which the Court disposes of this case. I concur with the holding of the Court that under Article 46a the child-placing agency stands in loco parentis to the child and is clothed with the authority to give or withhold the consent necessary to the entry of a judgment for adoption. This consent was not obtained by Appellees. It is apparently the law that parental consent in similar cases is jurisdictional. Burran v. Fuller, *696248 S.W.2d 1015 (Tex.Civ.App.1952, reversed on other grounds) 151 Tex. 335, 250 S.W.2d 587 (1952); Woodall v. Schmudlach, 299…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Peacock v. BradshawTexas Supreme Court · 1946
- Home of the Holy Infancy v. KaskaTexas Supreme Court · 1965
- Platt v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1944
- Pearce v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1939
- Woodall v. SchmudlachCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1957
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.