in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children, 437 S.W.3d 498

Parents (Mother and Father) separated after relocating to Texas; two children A.B. (b.2005) and H.B. (b.2006) were involved in DFPS proceedings after H.B. was hospitalized in 2007 for severe malnutrition/failure to thrive and developmental delays.
DFPS placed the children with relatives; after Father completed services, children returned to him in June 2008; in July 2008 workers discovered injuries to A.B., prompting removal and a termination suit.
First bench trial (2009) found clear-and-convincing evidence to terminate Father’s rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D) and (E); court of appeals reversed on factual-sufficiency grounds.
Retrial (2011) before a jury produced identical findings; court of appeals again found factual insufficiency; after en banc rehearing the court of appeals affirmed termination under subsection (E).
Father argued the en banc court failed to perform a proper factual-sufficiency review by not detailing evidence favorable to him; the Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the court of appeals applied the correct standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an appellate court must detail conflicting evidence when affirming a parental-termination verdict	DFPS: not required; appellate court must perform exacting review of entire record but need not detail evidence when affirming	Father: court of appeals failed to detail evidence favorable to him; thus did not properly conduct a factual-sufficiency review	Court held appellate courts need not detail the evidence when affirming termination, but must perform an exacting review of the entire record
Whether the court of appeals applied the correct factual-sufficiency standard	DFPS: en banc opinion cited and applied In re C.H./J.F.C. standard and considered entire record	Father: en banc majority ignored or failed to recount evidence that undermined verdict	Court held the en banc court applied the correct standard and the record shows it considered evidence favorable to Father
Whether evidence supported termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(E) (endangerment)	DFPS: medical and other evidence (H.B.’s failure to thrive, A.B.’s traumatic facial injuries) supported a reasonable factfinder’s firm belief	Father: offered testimony attributing issues to Mother, denied abuse, challenged causation and credibility	Court concluded evidence was factually sufficient to support termination under subsection (E) when viewed in light of entire record

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parents’ constitutional right to make decisions concerning care of their children)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (articulated exacting factual-sufficiency standard for termination cases)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency framework for determining whether a factfinder could form a firm belief by clear and convincing evidence)
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (clear-and-convincing standard required in termination proceedings)
Gonzales v. McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 195 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2006) (appellate courts must detail evidence when reversing a jury, but not when affirming, in preponderance cases)
Ellis County State Bank v. Keever, 888 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1994) (explaining purpose of detailing evidence when reversing jury verdicts)
Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. 1994) (requires courts of appeals to detail evidence when affirming or reversing exemplary-damages awards due to jury discretion)
Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (distinction between factual determination of injury and jury’s moral-condemnation role in punitive damages)