In Re KW
2011 WL 565641
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Biological parents appeal from termination of their parental rights sought by TDFPS regarding two children, K.W. and K.W.
- The trial court terminated under multiple predicate grounds, including a ground (M) based on conduct violating § 161.001(1)(D)/(E) or equivalent.
- Appellants combined new-trial and points claimed legal and factual insufficiency to support the termination.
- The trial court’s sole unchallenged predicate ground was § 161.001(1)(M), which the court found sufficient to terminate.
- Children were placed with prospective adoptive parents, Seth and Mary Mearig, who expressed willingness to adopt.
- Evidence showed parental drug use, prior terminations in an earlier case, custody instability, and housing/financial instability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of sufficiency challenge | Parents claim legal/factual insufficiency to support termination. | § 263.405(i) bars review of unpreserved issues; challenge was not properly presented. | Waived; no review of sufficiency on other grounds. |
| Best interest of the children | Termination not in children's best interest. | Holley factors establish termination was in best interest. | Yes; evidence supports best-interest finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (one predicate ground suffices when best interest found)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (clear and convincing standard for best interest)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best interest)
- In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011) (Holley framework applied to best interest)
- Perez v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 148 S.W.3d 427 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004) (best interest and sufficiency considerations)