law-family-law-international | family law cases |
INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW - INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION LITIGATION
07-0303 ELIZABETH GOODSON v. ADELINA CASTELLANOS; from Williamson County; 3rd district
(03-04-00335-CV, 214 SW3d 741, 01-19-07, pet. denied Feb 2008)(family law, international adoption)
Elizabeth Goodson traveled to Kazakstan to adopt K.G. After returning from Kazakstan, Goodson and her
girlfriend, Adelina Castellanos, filed a joint petition to adopt K.G. in Bexar County, and a district court granted
the adoption. Subsequent to the adoption, the relationship between Goodson and Castellanos ended, and
Castellanos filed a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. After a trial, the district court entered an order
appointing Castellanos as the sole managing conservator of K.G. and ordered Goodson to pay attorney’s
fees and child support. Goodson appeals the judgment of the district court. We will affirm the judgment of
the district court in part and reverse and remand in part.
Because we have concluded that (1) the adoption decree is not void, (2) the time to attack the decree has
passed, (3) Goodson was not entitled to a parental presumption over Castellanos, (4) the district court did
not improperly violate Goodson’s right to the care of her child by appointing a nonparent as the sole
managing conservator of K.G., (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence
concerning Castellanos’s brother or by ordering Goodson to pay child support, (6) the district court did not
err in the amount of child support ordered, and (7) Goodson failed to preserve her complaint concerning the
manner in which the attorney’s fees were ordered or the amount of postjudgment interest ordered, we affirm
the portion of the district court’s judgment appointing Castellanos as sole managing conservator and
Goodson as possessory conservator and requiring Goodson to pay child support and attorney’s fees to
Castellanos. However, because we concluded that the amount of attorney’s fees ordered to be paid to the
amicus attorney was not supported by sufficient evidence, we reverse and remand this case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion