In Re DMD, 363 S.W.3d 916

In 2002, Oklahoma removed the four children due to abuse/neglect and domestic violence; their father’s rights were terminated and the children were later returned to appellant before moving to Texas.
In 2004, the Texas DFPS received a referral accusing appellant of abuse/neglect; all four children were removed in December 2004.
On June 23, 2005, the trial court appointed DFPS as permanent managing conservator and appellant as possessory conservator, with service-magency requirements and child-support obligations set.
DFPS moved to terminate appellant’s parental rights on May 21, 2009, under subsections (F), (I), and (O) and for the children’s best interests.
A 2010–2011 sequence of hearings culminated in a final judgment on April 26, 2011 terminating appellant’s parental rights under (F), (I), (O) and best interests, with proceedings treated as trial at placement-review and later hearings.
The appellate review is limited to the April 26, 2011 hearing record despite earlier proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence under §161.001(1)(F)	Appellant argues insufficient proof of ability to support per period.	Department contends evidence shows capability to provide support and actual nonpayment due to circumstances.	Evidence legally and factually sufficient to prove failure to support under (F).
Best-interest finding sufficiency	Appellant asserts lack of compelling evidence of best interest to terminate.	Department argues multiple factors show termination is in children’s best interest.	Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support termination in the children’s best interest.

In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard articulated; sufficiency framework)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny of termination statutes)
In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (parental-rights protection; best-interest factors overview)
Phillips v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 25 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.-Austin 2000) (gifts-in-lieu of support not full fulfillment of duty; context for support)
In re C.L., 322 S.W.3d 889 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (discussion of relevant statutory subsections and evidence considerations)
In re J.M.M., 80 S.W.3d 232 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002) (consideration of ability to pay and nonpayment context)
In re A.A.A., 265 S.W.3d 507 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (utilization of Holley factors in best-interest determinations)