In Re NRT
338 S.W.3d 667
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- N.R.T. is a child born January 27, 2006 who has been in foster care since 2007 after her mother’s incarceration and prior to that was cared for by her paternal grandmother C.S. when the mother was jailed; the Department opened the case in 2007 after C.S. tested positive for cocaine and marijuana and N.R.T. tested positive for cocaine.
- The Department appointed temporary managing conservator and placed N.R.T. with foster mother K.V. following a 2008 disposition hearing.
- A February 2009 final order named the Department permanent managing conservator with conditions including no visitation, with potential relative placement subject to evaluation; J.G.’s home was not approved as a placement.
- In December 2009 the Department filed a petition to terminate parental rights; the bench trial occurred June 25, 2010; the trial court terminated both parents’ rights and the Department sought adoption by K.V. if termination occurred.
- The court found predicate grounds under § 161.001 for both parents (mother: N and O; and for the mother also in N; father: Q) and that termination was in N.R.T.’s best interest; the parents appeal, and the court ultimately affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading sufficiency under §161.001 despite the title | P.T. and C.T. contend the petition wrongly cited §156.101 | Department argues title is immaterial; substance shows termination under §161.001 | Pleading sufficient; termination proper under §161.001 despite title |
| Legal and factual sufficiency of predicate grounds | Father and mother challenge predicate grounds under §161.001(1)(N),(O),(Q) | Evidence supports constructive abandonment (N) and inability to care (Q); prior evidence permissible under §161.004 | Evidence legally and factually sufficient for the predicate grounds relied on; Q satisfied for father; N for mother |
| Best interest sufficiency | Termination preserves child’s safety and stability | Foster care with K.V. provides stable bond and adoption plan, absent feasible relative placement | Termination in child’s best interest, supported by Holley factors and record |
| Res judicata and §161.004 applicability | Evidence predating 2008 could be barred by res judicata | §161.004 allows consideration of earlier evidence; material changes after denial support termination | Res judicata did not bar consideration; §161.004(a)(2) and (3) satisfied; evidence, including pre-2009 events, supports termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (termination under §161.001 requires clear and convincing evidence of predicate acts and best interest)
- In re D.S.A., 113 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003) (reasonable efforts to place with relatives can support return attempts even if futile)
- In re M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009) (family service plans and relative placements are relevant to reasonable efforts to return child)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (best interest factors are not exclusive; evaluate totality of evidence)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors guide best-interest analysis)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (future imprisonment and inability to care can support termination under §161.001(1)(Q))
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency standard in termination cases; substantial evidence review)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factors for termination under §161.001 and consideration of future inability to care)