In re P.H.
544 S.W.3d 850
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Mother ("Laura") has five biological children; all were removed for neglect and parental rights to two were previously terminated; grandmother ("Ava") has custody/adopted some children and lives in California.
- Laura has documented mental illness (bipolar disorder, borderline intellectual functioning), frequently does not take medication, and has a history of unstable, transient living and inadequate care of children (homelessness, living in a storage shed, prior neglect incidents).
- Penny (the infant) was removed at three days old after hospital psychiatric evaluation concluded Laura lacked cognitive ability to care for the newborn; Penny was placed with grandmother Ava.
- Department of Family and Protective Services created a court-ordered service plan requiring parenting classes, counseling, and visitation; Laura attended some counseling (through EHN) and some visits but did not attend parenting classes and did not comply fully with the plan.
- Trial court found grounds for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangering conduct) and §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered services) and also found termination was in Penny’s best interest; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Laura) | Defendant's Argument (DFPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & factual sufficiency that Laura engaged in endangering conduct under §161.001(b)(1)(E) | Evidence insufficient to show a voluntary, deliberate course of conduct endangering Penny | Past pattern of neglect with older children, homelessness, untreated mental illness, failure to complete parenting classes and unstable behavior support endangerment | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (b)(1)(E) |
| Sufficiency of alternative predicate ground under §161.001(b)(1)(O) | Challenge to sufficiency of evidence she failed to comply with court-ordered actions | DFPS showed failure to complete service-plan parenting classes and other requirements | Not reached (court disposed after upholding (b)(1)(E)) |
| Best-interest determination under §161.001(b)(2) — legal sufficiency | Termination not shown to be in child’s best interest; mother sought more time | Child needs permanence; grandmother’s stable home and Laura’s instability/untreated illness support termination | Affirmed: evidence legally sufficient that termination was in Penny’s best interest |
| Best-interest determination — factual sufficiency | Evidence insufficiently convincing to form firm belief termination was best for Penny | Multiple Holley factors favor termination: safety, permanence, parenting ability, use of services, stability of placement | Affirmed: evidence factually sufficient that termination was in child’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Human Services v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (endanger means exposing child to loss or injury; grounds for termination require predicate act and best interest)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in termination cases)
- 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.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (court may consider conduct before and after child’s birth when assessing endangerment)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground plus best interest is required to support termination)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for evaluating child’s best interest)
- In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (neglect can be as dangerous as direct physical abuse)
- In re B.C.S., 479 S.W.3d 918 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015) (focus on child’s needs and permanence in best-interest analysis)