of Human Servs., 737 S.W.2d 25, 26-27 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1987, no writ); Subia v. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs., 750 S.W.2d 827, 831 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1988, no writ); Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835, 836 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1982, no writ). 41 . 89 S.W.3d at 25. 42 . Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685-86, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989); Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485, 515-16, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984). 43 . Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424, 436, 121 S.Ct. 1678, 149 L.Ed.2d 674 (2001). 44 . 491 U.S. at 685-86, 109 S.Ct. 2678. 45 . 466 U.S. at 515-16, 104 S.Ct. 1949. 46 . 768 S.W.2d 273 (Tex. 1989). 47 . x.App.-Amarillo 1983, writ refd n.r.e.) and Freedom Homes of Tex 3 A.2d 1035, 1041 (1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Simon, 171 Mich.App. 443, 431 N.W.2d
holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution