394 S.W.3d 633
Tex. App.2012Background
- Mother tested positive for cocaine during pregnancy and prior to birth, drawing DFPS attention.
- DFPS removed A.C. from the mother and placed her with the paternal grandmother, then moved to a foster home after concerns about home study.
- Mother and father continued drug use, including after treatment, and mother was jailed for probation violations.
- The trial court terminated the mother’s rights to her other children in March 2011 based on endangerment, endangering conduct, and noncompliance with a court order.
- Jury found multiple predicate acts supported termination and that termination was in A.C.’s best interests.
- The court appointed the Department as sole managing conservator, rejecting the grandmother as suitable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of termination grounds | Mother’s prior termination supports 161.001(1)(M). | Prior decree not final; cannot satisfy predicate. | Legally sufficient to prove 161.001(1)(M) and other predicates. |
| Best interest for termination | Holley factors and 263.307 support termination and Department conservatorship. | Grandmother should be conservator; better for child. | Termination and Department as sole conservator in child’s best interest. |
| Conservatorship decision standard | Department fit to provide safe, stable home; grandmother failed Holley factors. | Grandmother is suitable and preserves family ties. | Sufficient evidence to name Department sole managing conservator. |
| Exclusion of evidence of bias | Evidence of bias should have been admitted. | Mother waived error by not timely proffering; no reviewable error. | Error waived; no reversal on bias evidence. |
| Admission of expert testimony | McCartney’s testimony should be reviewed as expert evidence. | Preservation defective; no timely objection/running objection. | Waived objection; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard; Holley factors guide best interests)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal-sufficiency review; termination standards)
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny in termination; best interests emphasized)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. 2003) (Holley factors not exhaustive; best-interest considerations)
- Department of Human Services v. Alternatives in Motion, 210 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (Holley framework applied to conservatorship decisions)