Holley v. Adams
- Court
- Texas Supreme Court
- Decided
- December 1, 1976
- Docket
- B-5880
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
Cited 4,606 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that one factor that a court may consider in ascertaining a child’s best interest is the excuse for the acts or omissions — in the Interest of F. H. T., a Child (2012)
- holding that the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody as a factor in ascertaining the best interest of a child — In the Interest of A.C.T.M., a Child v. the State of Texas (2024)
- holding that the acts or omissions of the parent which may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not a proper one as a factor in ascertaining the best interest of a child — In the Interest of A.C.T.M., a Child v. the State of Texas (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
SAM D. JOHNSON, Justice.
David Adams instituted this suit for termination of the parent-child relationship between his former wife, Nanci Adams Holley, and their son. The trial court ordered termination under Section 15.02 of the Texas Family Code Annotated [1] on the grounds [*368] that Nanci Holley had failed to support her child [Section 15.02(1)(E)], that her conduct endangered the emotional well-being of the child [Section 15.02(1)(D)], and that the termination of the parent-child relationship was in the best interest of the child [Section 15.02(2)]. The court of civil appeals affirmed. 532 S.W.2d 694. We reverse and render judgment denying termination of the parent-child relationship.
David and Nanci Holley were married in 1965. The only child of their marriage, David Christopher, was born the following year. The couple separated in 1968 and subsequently Nanci Holley filed a suit for divorce which was granted in 1969. During the pendency of the divorce action Nanci Holley voluntarily delivered the child to his father in Austin, Texas where he has remained at all times pertinent to this action.
Cite this
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (1976)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.