in the Interest of A.A.L.A, F.K.A, and C.M.A., Children, 14-15-00265-CV

Background

Department removed three children (born 2005, 2006, 2009) in June 2013 after report that mother left them with a friend while incarcerated; children were dirty but healthy; mother admitted drug use. Appellant (father) was imprisoned from 2009 until paroled December 2014.
Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship June 24, 2013; trial recessed to allow appellant to attend after parole and concluded January 28, 2015.
Associate judge found parents committed predicate termination grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D), (E), and (M), and that termination was in the children’s best interest; district court signed final decree March 2, 2015, terminating parental rights and appointing Department sole managing conservator.
Appellant does not challenge the (M) finding (previous termination in 2004) but contests delayed appointment of counsel and challenges sufficiency of evidence for best-interest and for endangerment findings (D and E) under the collateral‑consequences doctrine.
Trial evidence emphasized appellant’s long criminal history (1997–2009 convictions, imprisoned in 2009), appellant’s awareness of mother’s drug use while children lived with her, the children’s stable placement with a maternal relative who sought adoption, and Department testimony that appellant’s proposed home was unstable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Delay in appointment of counsel	Appellant: 10‑month delay deprived him of time to work service plan and prepare; reversible error	State: appointment was eventually made; delay did not prejudice outcome	Court assumed error but held it harmless — no reversible error; counsel had months to prepare and no ineffective assistance shown
2. Best interest of the children	Appellant: insufficient evidence that termination was in children’s best interest	State: children were stable with relative, father had criminal history and unstable home; Department’s plan favored termination	Evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support best‑interest finding
3. Sufficiency of endangerment findings (D and E) — collateral consequences concern	Appellant: must review D/E sufficiency because those findings could support future (M) termination and have collateral consequences	State: (M) finding alone suffices; but court can review D/E if collateral consequences warrant	Court reviewed D/E due to potential collateral consequences and upheld them as legally and factually sufficient
4. Use of prior termination (M)	Appellant: prior 2004 termination is remote and unfair to use later	State: prior termination is valid evidence under (M); pattern of criminal conduct supports endangerment even without 2004 decree	Court treated (M) as satisfied (appellant did not contest it) and noted remoteness is a fact‑specific inquiry; current record supports endangerment regardless

Key Cases Cited

In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) (parental termination implicates fundamental constitutional rights)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear‑and‑convincing standard and sufficiency review in termination cases)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (legal sufficiency review requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to the finding)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are not absolute; child’s interests weigh in termination analysis)
Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (parental misconduct alone can support inference of danger to child)
In re M.C., 917 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. 1996) (definition of "endanger" in termination context)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground plus best interest required for termination)
Avery v. State, 963 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997) (prior termination remoteness considered by examining persistence of conditions)