in the Interest of A.L.W. and A.N.W., Minor Children, 01-14-00805-CV

Background

DFPS filed suit October 2, 2013 seeking conservatorship and termination of mother A.L.T.’s parental rights to daughters A.L.W. (b. 2001) and A.N.W. (b. 2002) after alleged physical abuse by the children’s father’s girlfriend while the children were in the father’s care.
Trial occurred September 2, 2014 (bench trial). DFPS caseworker Cherena Mills was the sole witness; the reporter’s record is extremely short (≈12.5 pages). DFPS introduced birth certificates, a family service plan (FSP), and hair/urine drug test results showing positive hair tests for cocaine and marijuana in Oct. and Nov. 2013 and negative urine tests.
Trial court terminated mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D), (E), (N), and (O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest; DFPS appointed sole managing conservator. Final decree signed Sept. 16, 2014.
Appellant appealed; appellate court found at least three arguable grounds and ordered new appellate counsel after an Anders filing. Appellant’s brief argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that the evidence (both legally and factually) is insufficient to support the statutory grounds and best-interest finding.
Key disputed facts in the record: mother lived out-of-state (Illinois/Iowa), had intermittent contact/visits (last visit end of July 2014), completed parenting classes but allegedly did not complete other services, had two positive hair drug tests early in the case, and DFPS did not present expert context for those results. The abuse prompting removal was attributed to the father’s girlfriend, not mother.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (A.L.T.)	Defendant's Argument (DFPS)	Held (trial court result / contested below)
1. Ineffective assistance of counsel	Trial counsel was constructively and actually ineffective: failed to investigate, maintain contact, object, or meaningfully test DFPS’s case; prejudice should be presumed under Cronic or, alternatively, shown under Strickland.	(Implied) Counsel was appointed and there is no showing counsel’s performance altered the outcome; case presented facts supporting termination.	Trial court proceeded with appointed counsel; appellate briefing argues entitlement to new trial. Appellate court previously found arguable issues and ordered new counsel.
2. Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(D) & (E) (endangerment)	Evidence is speculative and inadequate: abuse occurred while children were with the father; no proof mother knew of or allowed danger; positive hair tests without expert/context do not establish a continuing endangering course.	(Implied) Mother’s drug tests, failure to complete services, and instability support endangerment findings.	Trial court found evidence sufficient; appellant contends legal and factual insufficiency.
3. Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(N) (constructive abandonment)	DFPS failed to prove elements: mother maintained some contact (visit in July, spoke to caseworker Aug. 20), DFPS didn’t show reasonable efforts or inability to provide safe environment.	(Implied) Mother did not visit consistently, did not complete services, and effectively abandoned children.	Trial court found (N) satisfied; appellant contests sufficiency.
4. Sufficiency of evidence for §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with court order)	No specific court order in record meeting §161.001(1)(O)’s specificity requirement; children were removed for abuse by third party (father/girlfriend), not mother; FSP alone and boilerplate permanency orders insufficient under clear-and-convincing standard.	(Implied) FSP and permanency orders incorporated into record and mother failed to complete required services over nine months, justifying (O).	Trial court found (O) satisfied and terminated rights; appellant argues (O) is unsupported.
5. Best interest (§161.001(2))	Best-interest finding is not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence: record lacks Holley-factor proof (children’s desires, needs, bonding, stability); DFPS testimony was conclusory; mother has no CPS/criminal history and completed parenting classes.	(Implied) Children are in stable adoptive placement (grandmother) and termination serves their safety and permanence.	Trial court concluded termination was in children’s best interest; appellant disputes sufficiency.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (prejudice may be presumed where counsel wholly fails to provide meaningful adversarial testing)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental‑rights termination requires heightened scrutiny and due process)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard explained for termination appeals)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (removal for abuse/neglect under §262.201 and its probative value for termination issues)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (strict construction of termination statutes; conjecture insufficient)
In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (applying Strickland to parental‑rights termination proceedings)