A. W. and R. R. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
03-17-00048-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 14, 2017Background
- Parents A.W. and R.R. appealed termination of their parental rights to daughter K.R.; trial court entered judgment after a jury found statutory grounds and best interest proven by clear and convincing evidence.
- Jury found A.W. violated multiple statutory grounds (Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (M), (O)) and that termination was in the child's best interest.
- A.W. did not file a motion for new trial and failed to preserve some legal-sufficiency objections at the charge conference; she objected to submission of some but not all grounds.
- R.R. challenged factual sufficiency; he preserved his challenges via a motion for new trial and focused appellate briefing on subsection (E) (endangerment).
- Evidence against R.R. included felony convictions (assault-family-violence; unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon), contempt for unpaid child support, recent incarceration, testimony and a psychological report describing domestic violence between the parents.
- Trial court excluded certain additional convictions offered in offer of proof; the Department did not cross-appeal that evidentiary ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency that A.W. committed statutory grounds (D),(E),(O) | A.W.: evidence insufficient to prove statutory grounds | Dept.: evidence (including prior Virginia termination) supported grounds | Overruled for preserved objections to (D),(E),(O); A.W. failed to preserve challenge to (M) and best-interest finding |
| Factual sufficiency and best-interest finding as to A.W. | A.W.: evidence factually insufficient to support termination and best-interest verdict | Dept.: evidence supported best-interest conclusion | Overruled — A.W. did not preserve factual-sufficiency complaints (no motion for new trial) |
| Preservation of issues / reliance on out-of-state termination (subsection M) | A.W.: challenges to subsection (M) and best-interest not preserved; contests use of Virginia order | Dept.: Virginia order showed prior termination for serious neglect/abuse; no expert needed to equate findings | Court: A.W. failed to preserve some challenges; even if preserved, subsection (M) would support termination based on prior Virginia order |
| Factual sufficiency that R.R. engaged in endangering conduct (subsection E) | R.R.: evidence factually insufficient to show endangerment | Dept.: convictions, incarceration, domestic-violence evidence, and psychological report supported finding of endangerment | Affirmed — viewing evidence neutrally, a reasonable fact-finder could form a firm belief that R.R. endangered the child; factual-sufficiency challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal and factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (legal-sufficiency standard under clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency review principles)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition of endangerment for termination)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one statutory ground needed to support termination)
- In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (endangerment may be established without actual injury; incarceration considered in context of course of conduct)