545 S.W.3d 645
Tex. App.2017Background
- Father (Appellant R.E.G.) and mother (G.B.) trafficked drugs; both incarcerated; R.A.G. born 2007 and lived with paternal grandmother early in life.
- Father released in 2012 but deported to Mexico; he never had contact with or financial support for R.A.G.; family had some telephone/Facebook contact with him.
- DFPS removed R.A.G. from mother after December 2014 incident (mother arrested for shoplifting; tested positive for cocaine); child placed with maternal aunt S.O. in May 2015.
- DFPS filed termination petition July 2015; attempted to locate and notify father, sent letters, conducted due diligence; substituted service ordered; father answered and participated by telephone at trial.
- Trial court terminated father's parental rights on multiple statutory grounds, found termination in child's best interest, and appointed DFPS as permanent managing conservator; this appeal challenges those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS) | Defendant's Argument (R.E.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal/factual sufficiency of predicate ground §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) | Father’s criminal conduct, incarceration, deportation, and prolonged absence constituted a voluntary course of conduct endangering the child’s emotional/physical well‑being | Father lacked knowledge of mother’s misconduct and did not place child in harmful conditions; deportation prevented contact | Court: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to support (b)(1)(E); father’s course of conduct (criminality, absence, no contact/support) justified finding |
| Best‑interest finding | Placement with aunt is stable; child bonded to caretakers; father has no relationship or plan; permanence required | Father argues insufficiency of evidence to show termination is in child’s best interest | Court: Holley factors support best interest; evidence legally and factually sufficient |
| Appointment of DFPS as permanent managing conservator under §153.371/161.207 | With both parents’ rights terminated, statute requires appointing a suitable adult or DFPS; termination proven | Father argues conservatorship unsupported because predicate grounds allegedly not proven | Court: Appointment proper; challenge subsumed in termination challenge; overruled |
| Due process / defective service | Service and notice were adequate; DFPS made reasonable efforts; father filed an answer and appeared | Father contends DFPS intentionally failed to serve him, denying due process | Court: Father waived service complaint by filing general denial and appearing at trial; waived claim upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency standard in parental‑termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (factual‑sufficiency standard; clear‑and‑convincing evidence framework)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (endangerment requires more than theoretical risk; deportation may be relevant)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best‑interest analysis)
- Texas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (both statutory predicate and best‑interest elements required for termination)
- Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (endangerment defined as exposing child to loss or injury; parental course of conduct analysis)
- In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]) (parental absence and lack of contact can support endangerment and best‑interest findings)
- Walker v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (criminal conduct and absence relevant to endangerment)