In Re DS, 333 S.W.3d 379

DFPS filed a petition on Oct. 29, 2009 seeking termination of the biological parents’ rights to D.S. and N.S.
A prior 2005 petition culminated in a 2007 order appointing DFPS as permanent managing conservator and the parents as possessory conservators.
The father was incarcerated for methamphetamine offenses since 2005 and had limited personal contact with the children.
The children had been placed in multiple placements and were living with foster parents M.H. and G.H. with open adoption discussions involving the mother.
The mother signed an open adoption agreement and relinquished rights in Sept. 2009; the plan was to adopt by the foster parents if rights were terminated.
The March 11, 2010 trial resulted in termination of both parents’ rights and continuation of DFPS as permanent managing conservator.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the termination in the children’s best interests supported by clear and convincing evidence?	Department asserts strong risk factors and adoptability support termination.	Father contends insufficient merit for best-interest termination given potential reunification prospects.	Yes; evidence legally and factually sufficient to support best-interest termination.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not raising res judicata?	Department argues § 161.004(b) allows consideration of prior proceedings and related evidence.	Father asserts failure to raise res judicata denied effective assistance.	No; counsel’s performance not deficient under Strickland and § 161.004(b) permitted consideration of prior evidence.
Did the father's telephonic appearance at trial constitute meaningful participation?	Department contends the record shows robust participation and no denial of meaningful participation.	Father claims malfunctioning equipment denied meaningful participation.	No error; telephone participation was not meaningfully defective given the court’s accommodations.
Did the evidence support termination on two predicate grounds (D and E)?	Department relies on D and E as support among other predicates.	Father challenges sufficiency of D and E grounds.	Yes for at least one valid predicate; court need not address D and E given other unchallenged predicates (M, N, Q) that support termination.

Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors guide best-interest analysis)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors not exhaustive; totality of evidence governs)
In re S.M.L.D., 150 S.W.3d 754 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004) (best interest analysis permits considering totality of evidence)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; standard of review for sufficiency)
In re P.E.W., 105 S.W.3d 771 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003) (predicate grounds may be used to support termination under Holley framework)