In Re Me-Mn
342 S.W.3d 254
Tex. App.2011Background
- May 9, 2008, DFPS received a referral alleging neglectful supervision of M.E.-M.N. while in Appellant S.G.'s care at a methadone clinic.
- Investigators found Appellant in the home, with M.E.-M.N., and documented a history of prescription drug abuse and loss of custody of her two oldest children.
- Positive drug test results for Appellant and M.E.-M.N. led to recommendation that M.E.-M.N. be placed in foster care.
- DFPS filed termination proceedings against Appellant and the biological father on May 20, 2008; Appellant's retained counsel withdrew in Feb. 2009; trial court appointed new trial counsel.
- Trial court terminated Appellant's parental rights after a September 2009 bench trial, finding endangerment and a best-interest determination.
- Appellant's counsel filed a notice of appeal and an agreed withdrawal; appellate counsel was not initially appointed; the court abated the appeal to address indigence and effective-assistance issues, then on remand appointed appellate counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frivolousness finding jurisdiction | Appellant argues the frivolousness finding was valid. | Trial court had jurisdiction to render the frivolousness finding. | Frivolousness order void; court lacked jurisdiction when signed. |
| Effective assistance of counsel post-judgment | Appellant was denied effective post-judgment appellate counsel. | Appellant proceeded with appellate briefing aided by appointed counsel on remand; no prejudice shown. | No prejudice established; issue overruled. |
| Legal sufficiency of endangerment finding | Evidence relied on by the court was conclusory. | Sufficient evidence, including Appellant's conduct and hospitalization/drug-use context, supports endangerment. | Evidence legally sufficient to support endangerment under §161.001(1)(E). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.K., 180 S.W.3d 681 (Tex.App.-Waco 2005) (abate-and-refile procedure for ineffective-assistance challenges in termination)
- In re J.H.G., 302 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2010) (timely presentation of issues required in statement of points)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance in termination cases)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny in termination proceedings)
- In re J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003) (endangerment analysis and parent conduct causal link)
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (indigent parent rights to counsel and effective assistance standard)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (due-process and heightened standard in termination)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (clear and convincing standard for termination and strong parental rights)