554 S.W.3d 164
Tex. App.2018Background
- Newborn C.M.C. tested positive for amphetamines in hospital records alleged by the Department; Mother’s hair follicle allegedly tested positive as well; Mother admitted using an illegal substance months before birth but would not identify it.
- The Department removed C.M.C. and named it temporary managing conservator; child was placed with maternal grandmother M.C., who already cared for three siblings and planned to adopt C.M.C.
- Mother signed a service plan (drug/alcohol assessment, psychosocial assessment, visitation, court attendance) but failed to complete required programs, ceased regular contact after April 2017, and did not appear at trial.
- At trial the Department pursued termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O); evidence admitted at trial was limited (no medical/drug test records admitted; hearsay objections sustained to much of the caseworker’s file testimony).
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence Mother violated subsections N (constructive abandonment), D, and E (endangerment), and that termination was in the child’s best interest; appellate court affirmed termination on N but struck findings as to D and E as legally insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive abandonment (§161.001(b)(1)(N)) | Mother contested sufficiency of evidence that she failed to maintain contact or provide a safe environment. | Department argued child had been in conservatorship >6 months, Mother ceased contact after April 2017, and failed to provide a safe environment. | Affirmed: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support constructive abandonment and best-interest finding. |
| Endangerment via conditions (D) | Mother argued evidence was legally and factually insufficient to show she knowingly placed/allowed child in endangering conditions. | Department pointed to alleged prenatal drug exposure and Mother’s drug history to show endangerment. | Reversed as to D: Evidence legally insufficient—no competent proof (medical/drug test records or admissible testimony) that child was endangered. |
| Endangerment via conduct/placement (E) | Mother argued no proof of a conscious course of conduct endangering the child. | Department relied on allegations of maternal drug use and lifestyle to show a course of conduct creating danger. | Reversed as to E: Evidence legally insufficient—lack of admissible evidence tying mother’s conduct to endangerment of this child. |
| Directed verdict denial / collateral consequences of D/E findings | Mother argued trial court should have granted directed verdict on D/E and that erroneous D/E findings could have collateral effects in future cases (e.g., subsection M). | Department maintained sufficiency for D/E; also relied on court’s broader factfinding. | Court sustained appeals on D/E: directed-verdict challenge effectively granted on sufficiency review; appellate court struck D/E findings because of insufficient evidence, while leaving N-based termination intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (discussion of clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases)
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (termination proof standard precedent)
- In re M.N.G., 147 S.W.3d 521 (no-evidence standard inadequate in termination review)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (legal and factual sufficiency framework for termination)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (review rules—consider evidence in light most favorable to finding)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (constitutional dimension of parental-rights termination)
- Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (drug use may support endangerment findings)