in the Interest of A.J.M. and E.A.M., Children
375 S.W.3d 599
Tex. App.2012Background
- AppellantFather appeals termination of parental rights to A.J.M. and E.A.M. and challenges trial court rulings on legal prerequisites and evidentiary sufficiency.
- Appellant sought an extension of the dismissal deadline under family code provisions due to incarceration and anticipated release before trial.
- The trial court denied the extension; the court later ruled on endangerment and best-interest grounds.
- Evidence showed a history of CPS involvement beginning in 2007, prior criminal conduct, and incarceration impacting caregiving.
- Children were removed in 2010, placed with paternal grandmother and then in therapeutic foster care; trial court ultimately terminated parental rights and this was affirmed on appeal.
- The court did not reach issues under subsection (Q) but addressed endangerment and best-interest sufficiency and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extension of dismissal deadline | Father contends denial of extension was error | Court had discretion to deny extension under 263.401(b) | Denial did not abuse discretion; extension not warranted |
| Endangerment sufficiency | Endangerment evidenced by father's conduct and incarceration | Evidence showed endangered well-being through continued conduct and placement risk | Evidence is factually sufficient to support endangerment under §161.001(1)(E) |
| Best interest sufficiency | Termination in children's best interest due to needs and risk | Termination supported by evidence of neglect, needs, and lack of suitable care | Evidence is factually sufficient to support the best-interest finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.W., 249 S.W.3d 625 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008) (en banc; former §263.405 void as applied; separation of powers)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (as-applied challenges; accelerated timetable guidance from supreme court)
- In re J.H.G., 302 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2010) (as-applied challenges to §263.405; forfeiture rule discussion)
- In re M.E.-M.N., 342 S.W.3d 254 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2011) (consideration of long history of conduct and best interests)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive best-interest factors governing termination)