in Re Interest of N.G., a Child
577 S.W.3d 230
| Tex. | 2019Background
- DFPS removed N.G. after reports of neglect, drug exposure, and unsafe "hoarder" conditions; parents had histories of methamphetamine use and prior criminal convictions.
- Trial court ordered parents to complete services (education, drug/alcohol treatment, counseling) and submitted them to drug testing; both parents repeatedly failed to comply.
- Trial court terminated both parents’ rights under Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O), and found termination was in the child’s best interest; Department appointed sole managing conservator.
- The court of appeals affirmed termination based on subsection (O) (failure to comply with a court order), declining to review (D) or (E) because (O) alone supported termination.
- Mother sought review in the Texas Supreme Court, arguing (1) she is entitled to appellate review of (D) and (E) because those grounds carry collateral consequences for rights to other children, and (2) the court of appeals failed to assess whether the trial court’s order (including the service plan) was sufficiently specific for a §161.001(b)(1)(O) termination.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s/State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent whose rights were terminated under multiple grounds is entitled to appellate review of §161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) findings even if another ground suffices | Mother: Due process/due course of law requires review of (D)/(E) because those findings can be used later under §161.001(b)(1)(M) to terminate rights to other children | Court of appeals/Dept: Only one ground is necessary on appeal; appellate courts need address only the grounds necessary for final disposition | Texas Supreme Court: Parent is entitled to appellate review of (D)/(E) when raised on appeal; failing to review them violates due process because of their collateral consequences |
| Whether an appellate court must detail analysis when affirming (D)/(E) findings | Mother: Due process requires appellate courts to detail evidence when affirming (D)/(E) because of future consequences | Dept: Generally appellate affirmation need not recite detailed evidence under Family Code framework; specificity challenges should be raised earlier | Held: When affirming on (D)/(E), due process requires appellate courts to detail the evidence and analysis because those findings bind future proceedings |
| Whether the court of appeals erred by not addressing whether the trial court’s order/service plan was sufficiently specific to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O) | Mother: The order (and incorporated service plan) must be sufficiently specific; appellate review should assess specificity as part of (O) challenge | Dept: Specificity of pleadings or plans should be challenged at trial; appellate courts may focus on disposition-grounded issues | Held: Court of appeals erred by not addressing specificity; trial court necessarily must determine specificity before terminating under (O), and the appellate court must review that issue |
| Whether the court of appeals’ affirmance should be reversed/remanded | Mother: Errors in appellate review of (D)/(E) and failure to address (O) specificity warrant reversal and remand | Dept: Affirmance on (O) was sufficient for final disposition | Held: Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ affirmation and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (explaining appellate review standard and requirement to detail analysis when reversing for insufficient evidence)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (applying Santosky balancing test for due process in parental termination and setting factors for analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (establishing clear-and-convincing standard for termination of parental rights)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizing parental liberty interest in care, custody, and control of children)
- Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995) (equating federal due process and Texas due course of law principles)
- In re K-A.B.M., 551 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018) (noting only one predicate finding under §161.001(b)(1) is necessary when best interest is also found)