In re Interest of K-A.B.M.
551 S.W.3d 275
| Tex. App. | 2018Background
- Mother and Father are parents of two young children; CPS became involved after Mother choked one child and later admitted drug use while primary caregiver.
- Parents were arrested after 102 pounds of marihuana were found in their vehicle; children were placed in foster care and the Department filed to terminate parental rights. Possession charges were later dismissed for lack of probable cause, but other criminal incidents occurred while the case was pending.
- Both parents had documented histories of drug use, domestic violence between them (including arrests and a prior protective order), and inconsistent participation in court-ordered services (drug treatment, counseling, supervised visitation, drug testing).
- Service plans required counseling, drug testing/treatment, domestic-violence programming, psychiatric assessment, employment, and visitation; neither parent substantially completed required services or maintained regular visitation.
- The trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for continuance (Mother) | Mother: trial court erred in denying oral continuance because she lacked notice of the final hearing. | Department: counsel had reasonable notice; oral motion lacked required affidavit; court did not abuse discretion. | Denied — no abuse of discretion; mother’s counsel attended and notice requirement not shown to be lacking. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (Mother) | Mother: evidence legally/factually insufficient that her conduct endangered children. | Department: mother’s drug use, criminal activity, failure to complete services, and continued association with violent partner created endangering course of conduct. | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment finding. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(b)(1)(E) (Father) | Father: evidence legally/factually insufficient that his conduct endangered children. | Department: father’s criminal conduct, domestic violence, drug use, failure to complete services, and aggressive behavior toward children supported endangerment. | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment finding. |
| Best-interest finding | Parents: termination not supported as not proven to be in children’s best interest. | Department: Holley factors show ongoing danger, unmet needs, instability, service noncompliance, weak parental plans; foster placement stable. | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient that termination served children’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (statutory termination requires both predicate grounds and best-interest finding)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard in termination cases: firm belief or conviction)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for reviewing factual sufficiency in termination cases)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (parental drug use and its effect on parenting can support endangerment finding)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for determining child’s best interest)