D. F. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
393 S.W.3d 821
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- D.F. is the biological mother of K.J.F., born 8 Apr 2009, and H.S.F.; K.J.F. was removed from her care after involvement by DFPS in California and placement at the El Paso Child Crisis Center.
- DFPS intervened after California involvement, with S.B. (D.F.’s relative) initially seeking to care for the children in El Paso; S.B. later could not sustain care due to financial issues.
- K.J.F. and her siblings required medical attention at removal, and the Department filed Original Petition for Protection of a Child, Conservatorship, and Termination; emergency order named the Department temporary managing conservator.
- D.F. moved from California to El Paso; she lived homeless or in shelters and had unstable housing; she joined a Service Plan (Court-ordered) to regain reunification with K.J.F.
- DFPS’s initial permanency plan was reunification, but after D.F. and T.W.’s separation in 2011 the plan shifted toward relative adoption with a foster-adopt placement for K.J.F.
- D.F. failed to comply with the Service Plan (housing, employment, regular contact, drug testing/assessment, abstaining from drugs, etc.), leading to two major grounds: 161.001(1)(O) and best-interest termination; trial court terminated parental rights and appointed the Department as sole managing conservator.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal for abuse or neglect is an implied element of O | D.F. argues no abuse/neglect implied element; de novo review warranted | Department contends removal for abuse/neglect is an element of O | Yes, removal for abuse/neglect is an element; evidence supports removal for abuse/neglect |
| Whether completion of service plan foreclosed termination on best interests | D.F. completed a significant portion of the plan | Dept argued failure to complete all plan terms supports termination | Legally and factually sufficient to support termination under O; partial completion does not negate |
| Best interests support for termination given Holley factors | D.F. argues child’s needs and positive bonds argue against termination | Dept. shows instability, lack of housing/employment, and risk to child; foster placement stable | Evidence supports termination; Holley factors favor termination given stability of foster placement and D.F.’s noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (removal for abuse or neglect requires case-by-case analysis)
- In re A.A.A., 265 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (removal for abuse/neglect may be found despite shelter context)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. 2005) (set forth standards for clear and convincing evidence in termination cases)
- In re A.D., 203 S.W.3d 407 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006) (partial compliance insufficient to defeat §161.001(1)(O))