in the Interest of A.B. and K.B.
09-15-00135-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 13, 2015Background
- Children A.B. and K.B. were removed by the Department in Feb. 2014; appellant is their father whose parental rights were terminated.
- Evidence at trial: appellant and mother used illegal drugs in the home before and after the removal; appellant tested positive post-removal and failed court-ordered substance treatment and counseling.
- Evidence of domestic violence: mother testified to repeated physical abuse by appellant (including severe injuries), incidents witnessed by the children, and other violent acts (including threats of self-harm and assaultive conduct toward his brother).
- Appellant had unstable living conditions (multiple residences; living in a shop) and a criminal history (DWI conviction, arrests including aggravated assault).
- Department caseworker and foster-care testimony: children were doing well in foster care; relative and foster placements interested in permanency; caseworker concluded appellant’s drug use, violence, and unstable housing endangered the children and supported termination.
- Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence of endangerment under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(D) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(D) (endangerment) | Dept.: Father’s drug use, violent conduct, unstable housing created dangerous environment for children | Father: Evidence legally/factually insufficient to prove endangerment | Affirmed — sufficient evidence of endangerment |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(E) (placing with persons who engage in endangering conduct) | Dept.: Father placed children with persons/conditions that endangered them | Father: Insufficient proof on this ground | Not reached (court affirmed on (D) alone) |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court order) | Dept.: Father failed to complete ordered services (treatment, counseling, psychological exam, AA/NA attendance) | Father: Compliance challenge; insufficiency of proof | Not reached (court affirmed on (D) alone) |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest | Dept.: Permanency, stability, and safety in adoptive placement; father’s ongoing risk factors | Father: Claims of change, being a good father when sober, and support of other children | Affirmed — trial court could reasonably find termination in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for legal and factual sufficiency and clear-and-convincing evidence in parental-termination cases)
- In the Interest of J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (requirement to prove at least one statutory predicate and that termination is in child's best interest)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non‑exhaustive factors for determining child's best interest)
- Jordan v. Dossey, 325 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (parental environment and conduct relevant to endangerment under §161.001(1)(D))
- In the Interest of R.W., 129 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (drug use and violent conduct can support endangerment finding)
- In the Interest of M.R.J.M., 280 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (prior endangering conduct may support inference it will recur if child returned)