## Facts

- C.E. was born in 1995 to Stephanie Garcia while she was dating Christopher Ehrhardt.
- Garcia had admitted a sexual relationship with another man around the time she became pregnant.
- Garcia listed Ehrhardt on the birth certificate; the child was given initials matching Ehrhardt’s, and Ehrhardt signed the certificate without requesting genetic testing.
- In 2001, after the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) initiated proceedings, a Texas court adjudicated Ehrhardt as the father through an agreed Child Support Review Order and required monthly child support.
- About ten years later, when the OAG sought to modify child support, Ehrhardt filed a verified petition under Texas Family Code § 161.005(c) to terminate the parent-child relationship, alleging Garcia’s misrepresentation caused him to believe he was the biological father and requesting genetic testing.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, concluded Ehrhardt failed to make a prima facie showing of misrepresentation, denied genetic testing, and dismissed the termination suit.

## Issues

1. What constitutes a “prima facie case” of misrepresentation under Texas Family Code § 161.005(c) sufficient to require a court-ordered genetic test?
2. Whether a verified petition alleging misrepresentation, supported by circumstantial evidence, meets that prima facie threshold.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
- It held that Ehrhardt made a prima facie showing under § 161.005(c), so the trial court was required to order genetic testing.
- The trial court erred by denying testing and dismissing the case at the threshold stage.

## Legal Principles

- A “prima facie case” under § 161.005(c) is the minimum evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the statutory allegations are true; it does not require proving misrepresentation before testing is ordered.
- At the prima facie stage, the trial court should not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing inferences in a way that effectively decides the merits.
- “Misrepresentation” for § 161.005(c) purposes may be shown through circumstantial evidence, including conduct, omissions, and contextual facts, not only direct proof of an express statement of paternity.
- When the petition and supporting materials satisfy the prima facie requirement, § 161.005(c) requires the court to order genetic testing; merits determinations follow testing and may include best-interest and other statutory considerations.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that Ehrhardt’s verified allegations, combined with circumstantial evidence suggesting the mother’s misleading conduct, satisfied § 161.005(c)’s prima facie standard and required genetic testing; the trial court’s refusal to order testing and dismissal of the termination suit were reversed and the case remanded.


In re C.E., 391 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012)