A. C. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
577 S.W.3d 689
| Tex. App. | 2019Background
- Child born Dec. 2017 tested positive for methamphetamine; Department filed suit Dec. 11, 2017 seeking protection, paternity, conservatorship, and termination. Father was listed as an "alleged father" at filing; DNA later established paternity and the court entered parentage on Feb. 26, 2018.
- Mother voluntarily relinquished parental rights; case proceeded to bench trial Oct. 25, 2018. District court terminated father's parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), (O) and found termination in child’s best interest.
- Trial evidence: father had past and ongoing methamphetamine use (including a Feb. 2018 arrest for delivery), was on probation, had inconsistent or missed visits, failed to complete parenting classes, and had limited bonding/time with child; Department placed child with relatives or foster parents willing to adopt.
- Father raised jurisdiction/ripeness challenge post-trial (arguing he was only an "alleged father" when suit was filed and Section 161.002 governs alleged-father termination), alleged insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and multiple constitutional claims.
- Court treated ripeness as a subject-matter challenge but concluded the Department’s suit presented a concrete controversy (child already harmed), joinder—not ripeness—was the relevant doctrine for alleged-father complaints, and the father waived joinder objections by not raising them before trial.
- Court found legally and factually sufficient evidence supporting termination under subsection (E) (endangerment by parent conduct) and that termination was in the child’s best interest; ineffective-assistance and constitutional claims were rejected (procedurally waived or substantively unsupported).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (A.C.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter / ripeness: whether suit could name an "alleged father" and seek termination before paternity adjudication | Suit under Chapter 262 could join paternity, conservatorship, and termination; concrete controversy existed because child was born exposed to methamphetamine | Father: as an "alleged father" only Chapter 160/§161.002 grounds applied and those grounds were not ripe at filing | Court: Ripeness not a bar; joinder/governmental pleading allowed; father's joinder objections waived for failing to raise pretrial; jurisdiction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for statutory termination grounds (esp. §161.001(b)(1)(E)) | Evidence of father's drug use, probation, arrest while case pending, and unstable environment supported endangerment and termination | Father: evidence legally and factually insufficient; had stopped using by trial and sought to improve circumstances | Court: Evidence (past and ongoing meth use, arrest, missed visits, service-plan noncompliance) was legally and factually sufficient to support (E) and best-interest finding |
| Best interest of the child | Agency: child needs safety, stability; foster relatives/adoptive foster parents available; father failed to demonstrate bond, stability, or completion of plan | Father: had job, housing improvements, family support (grandmother) and recent stabilization; visitation barriers due to work/transportation | Court: Considering Holley factors and entire record, a factfinder could form firm conviction termination was in child's best interest; factual sufficiency affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (Department defended adequacy) | Father: counsel erred by not demanding de novo trial, permitting incriminating testimony, failing discovery, not moving to dismiss/join/bifurcate, and poor preparation | Court: Applied Strickland; found counsel's conduct could reflect plausible strategy, failures were not shown to be deficient or prejudicial; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness and standing as jurisdictional threshold)
- Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (ripeness tests require concrete controversies)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and standards for appellate review in termination cases)
- In re A.C., 560 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018) (heightened review and proof standard in parental-termination proceedings)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental drug use can constitute endangering course of conduct)
- Texas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment may be inferred from parental misconduct)