letter indicating his inability to appear at the hearing. 6 . One of the four issues J.W.L. raises — that the trial court should be compelled to hear his motion to vacate — has been rendered moot. The trial court conducted a hearing on that motion on January 29, 2009, and denied the motion by written order on February 6, 2009. 7 . In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547-48 (Tex.2003) (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). 8 . Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (citing Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978)). 9 . Id. at 65-66, 120 S.Ct. at 2060 (citing Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944)). 10 . M.S., 115 S.W.3d at 547 (<HOLDING>). 11 . Id. at 548 (original emphasis removed).
holding that a respondent in a termination of parental rights proceeding may not file a counterclaim holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest recognizing that the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights holding in a termination of parental rights case that as a question of law the trial courts ruling that the facts of this case sufficiently support the termination ground of willful abandonment are reviewed de novo with no presumption of correctness