Make your own free website on
CPS reform


156 S.W.3d 574 IN RE S.A.P.
135 S.W. 3d 165 IN RE S.A.P.
80 S.W. 3d 232 IN RE J.M.M
963 S.W. 2d 550 Avery vs. State


8.Because B.L.D. holds that the broad-form jury charge violates due process rights of par­ents through the creation of a conflict be­tween Rules 277 and 292, the court's holding is in conflict with E.B. Compare E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 649 (holding broad-form submission does not violate due process), with B.L.D., 56 S.W.Sd at 219 (concluding broad-form submission did not allow appellate re­view; thereby violating due process). While B.L.D. distinguishes E.B., because that case did not analyze Rule 292, it is important to note that the E.B. court did acknowledge ten jurors agreed appellant endangered her chil­dren. B.L.D., 56 S.W.3d at 215-16; see E.B., 802 S.W.2d at 649 (noting ten jurors agreed on termination); see also In re M.C.M., 57 S.W.3d 27, 31 n. 2 (Tex.App--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (following E.B. and hold­ing trial court properly submitted the control­ling issue in that case through its broad-form submission).


How could this happen to me