Crystal Spurck v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 1298
Tex. App.2013Background
- Spurck began dating Garza in 2007 and gave birth to L.G. in 2008; Garza had prior injury-to-a-child history and was intermittently incarcerated.
- I.G., Garza and Spurck’s child, died in August 2009 from blunt force trauma; authorities tied the deaths to potential abuse and Garza’s temper.
- The Department filed petitions in 2009 seeking protection, conservatorship, and termination of Garza’s and Spurck’s parental rights; L.G. was placed with foster parents.
- A temporary managing conservatorship and a guardian ad litem were appointed; the Department later shifted permanency plan from reunification to unrelated adoption.
- In November 2010 a final termination hearing began; the court issued a report recommending termination; Spurck’s grandmother and L.G.’s foster parents intervened.
- A February 2011 jury trial resulted in termination of Spurck’s parental rights and appointment of the foster parents as managing conservators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of witnesses not identified in discovery | Spurck; undisclosed witnesses Ramos/Boswell should have been excluded | Department had good cause or no unfair surprise; Ramos testified relevantly | No abuse of discretion; testimony admitted |
| Intervention by L.G.'s foster parents | Foster parents lack standing under 102.004(a) | Section 102.004(b) permits intervention by parties with substantial past contact | Intervention proper; 102.004(b) applies in Department suits too |
| Jury instruction on preference for family placement | Greather weight to relative preferred; grandmother should be preferred conservator | Statutes do not create a relative-preference after termination; 161.207 governs | Instruction not required; law does not create relative preference post-termination |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for statutory grounds | Evidence not clear and convincing under 161.001(1)(D)/(1)(E) | Evidence supports endangerment and parent’s conduct | legally and factually sufficient; one ground established |
| Sufficiency of the evidence on child’s best interest | Termination not in L.G.’s best interest given Spurck’s efforts | Evidence shows past endangerment and inadequate protection; foster placement stable | Keen evidence supports termination; best interest satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in evidentiary rulings in conservatorship cases)
- In re N.L.G., 238 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (standing to intervene under 102.004(b) for foster parents)
- In re A.M., 60 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (intervention and standing principles in custody proceedings)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors applied to best interests in termination)
- J.O.C., 47 S.W.3d 108 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (Holley factors and sufficiency standards in termination)
- In re B.K.D., 131 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (one statutory ground sufficient for termination; broad-form question allowed)
- Jasek v. Texas Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 348 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (recognizing intervention by parties with substantial past contact)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best interests in termination)
- Smith v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (best interests and evidence assessment in termination)