In the Interest of S.D.G., 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of J.L.G.’s parental rights after she attempted to use sovereign citizen arguments to evade compliance with court orders. The case involved J.L.G.’s failure to follow a court-ordered family service plan designed to reunify her with her nine-year-old daughter, S.D.G. The Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated proceedings after multiple reports of severe neglect, including allegations that J.L.G. and her partner, B.B., smoked crack cocaine in the presence of the child, left her unsupervised past midnight, and failed to enroll her in school. Additionally, S.D.G. displayed signs of malnourishment, was frequently seen barefoot and unclean, and reportedly told a neighbor that B.B. had attempted to sexually assault her.
Despite these alarming allegations, J.L.G. refused to cooperate with DFPS for nearly a year, declaring herself a “sovereign citizen” and arguing that the agency was not a legitimate government entity. Her refusal to acknowledge state authority extended to the service plan, which required her to attend drug counseling, undergo mental health evaluations, and provide a stable home. Instead of complying, she ignored DFPS communications, failed to attend counseling, and did not participate in required drug testing—only engaging after a court-ordered paternity test ruled out B.B. as the biological father, which undermined her strategy of relying on him to fulfill the service requirements.
Testimony at trial revealed that J.L.G. had a long history of drug use, including admitted methamphetamine use throughout her twenties, and had already lost custody of five other children in California under similar circumstances. Although she later attempted to argue that she was homeschooling S.D.G., she presented no evidence that any educational instruction was actually occurring. Additionally, despite concerns of ongoing domestic violence and possible sexual abuse involving B.B., she married him and moved into a home described by caseworkers as a “halfway house” for recently released felons.
During trial, J.L.G. continued to assert her sovereign citizen beliefs, insisting she was not bound by court orders and that she did not believe DFPS had jurisdiction over her. However, the trial court found that her claims had no legal merit and that her behavior demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to provide a safe and stable environment for her child. While she eventually complied with some service plan requirements—attending drug treatment and counseling for three months before trial—the court found her efforts insufficient to outweigh years of neglect and noncompliance. The court further noted that S.D.G. was thriving in foster care, excelling in school, and had bonded with a biological sibling in Alabama, where she was set to be adopted.
On appeal, J.L.G. argued that the termination order should be overturned because the trial court did not issue its final order within the 90-day statutory deadline. However, the appellate court rejected this argument, citing precedent that failure to meet the deadline does not deprive the court of jurisdiction and that the appropriate remedy would have been a mandamus petition, not reversal.
Ultimately, the Texas Court of Appeals upheld the termination, reinforcing that sovereign citizen arguments do not exempt individuals from legal responsibilities, particularly in child welfare cases. The ruling serves as yet another example of courts rejecting pseudo-legal defenses and prioritizing the best interests of children over parental assertions of fictitious legal immunity.
Source: In the Interest of S.D.G., 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 669.