A. R. and C. W. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
03-16-00143-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Parents (A.R. Mother; C.W. Father) left 11‑month‑old C.E.W. alone at home in May 2014; police found the infant alone in a high bassinet with soiled diaper and blankets and removed him.
- Child was born with bilateral cleft lip/palate and amniotic‑band injuries; necessary surgeries and medical care had not been timely scheduled, and the child had suffered hearing loss and feeding/weight problems.
- Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) removed C.E.W. and placed him with a foster family that promptly obtained medical care and facilitated developmental gains.
- Parents had criminal arrests/contacts and admitted or were shown to have used marijuana; Father invoked Fifth Amendment on drug questions; evidence of drug paraphernalia and odor was presented.
- Parents failed to fully comply with the court‑ordered family service plan (missed medical appointments, incomplete budgets, poor contact with caseworker, housing instability, evictions).
- Trial court terminated parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D), (E), and (O); parents appealed arguing evidence was legally and factually insufficient and termination was not in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(D) (conditions/surroundings that endanger) | Leaving an infant alone in a high bassinet with blankets created a dangerous environment; parents admitted leaving child alone | Parents argued evidence conflicted about actual risk from bassinet/blankets and disputed custody facts | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to terminate under (D) |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(E) (parental conduct endangering child) | Parents’ failure to obtain timely medical care for cleft lip/palate, drug use, and related conduct endangered child | Parents contested risk assessments and disputed some medical‑neglect characterizations | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to terminate under (E) |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court‑ordered plan) | Parents missed appointments, failed weekly contact, submitted incomplete/overstated budgets, and had unstable housing | Parents pointed to partial compliance and improvements during case | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to terminate under (O) |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interest | Child’s medical/developmental needs and risks from parents’ past conduct; foster family provided timely care and stable, bonded placement | Parents argued improvements and love for child; sought reunification | Court: Holley factors support best interest finding; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual sufficiency under clear‑and‑convincing burden)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (review standards for factual sufficiency in parental‑rights termination)
- Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endangerment may be inferred from parental misconduct)
- In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (leaving an infant alone can constitute endangerment)
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (deference to factfinder credibility assessments)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental drug use may support termination under subsection (E))
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for best‑interest analysis)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (application of Holley factors in termination cases)
- Wilz v. Flournoy, 228 S.W.3d 674 (Tex. 2007) (negative inferences may be drawn from Fifth Amendment invocations in civil cases)