in the Interest of A.L.D.H., a Child
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5044
Tex. App.2012Background
- A.L.D.H. was born in 2009 with drugs detected in her system; Turner admitted prenatal drug use.
- Turner fled from hospital with the child’s whereabouts initially unknown; she was arrested while traveling back toward the child.
- Department CPS intervened and placed A.L.D.H. with relatives; placement shifted to the Fortners at Stacy Vick’s suggestion.
- April Fortner, a CPS employee, facilitated the temporary placement with the Fortners; Turner was not advised that the Fortners intended to seek termination.
- Turner was incarcerated, paroled, and later released; the Fortners filed a petition to terminate Turner’s parental rights and to adopt A.L.D.H.
- Trial court held a contested termination proceeding, appointing the Fortners as Temporary Managing Conservators and Turner as Temporary Possessory Conservator; ultimately the trial court denied termination and adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was in the best interest of the child | Fortners: termination in best interest; extensive bonding with Fortners. | Turner: ongoing efforts to reform; capable of parenting. | No clear and convincing evidence that termination was in best interest. |
| Whether the trial court erred by applying a parental presumption | Fortners: trial court erred; presumption applies to termination cases. | Turner: presumption not misapplied; supports best-interest analysis. | Conclusion of law about parental presumption upheld; not reversible error. |
| Whether the findings of fact/conclusions of law were properly challenged | Fortners claim multiple faulty findings supporting termination. | Turner disputes credibility and sufficiency of evidence. | Court denied appellate challenge; findings and conclusions upheld. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the psychologist’s report | Fortners: report should be admitted for bonding assessment. | Turner: hearsay objection sustained. | Hearing officer’s exclusion deemed harmless error. |
| Whether the new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence should be granted | New evidence (relinquishment by father) could change outcome. | No diligence shown; evidence not shown to produce different result. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; overruled by operation of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (constitutional dimension of parent-child relationship; strict termination standard)
- In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (strict termination review; best interest presumption)
- In re T.N., 180 S.W.3d 376 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 2005) (best interests and due process in termination proceedings)
- Vasquez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 190 S.W.3d 189 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (clear and convincing standard and best interest analysis)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing termination findings; great weight/clear and convincing)