[mouser]

The footnote on page 13 of the ACLU’s amicus brief makes a verying interesting point.

Could you please post a link I have not seen that yet.

Thanks

[patton]

"3 Before the Court of Appeals, DFPS reframed its argument, relying instead on interpretations of “endangerment” in the context of parental termination proceedings. See Real Party in Interest’s Response to Amended Petition for Mandamus, at 30-32. These cases, however, interpret not Family Code § 262.201, the relevant standard in this case, but Family Code § 161.001, a substantially different standard, used to examine claims for permanent termination of the parental relationship after full investigation of the interests of the child. See id. at 30-32 (citing cases relating to the endangerment standard under § 161.001)."

Footnote 3, page 13, ACLU Amicus Brief