in the Interest of A.T.L., a Child
04-15-00379-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 28, 2015Background
- Termination of appellant’s parental rights to daughter A.T.L. (born Feb. 5, 2014); mother voluntarily relinquished rights. Trial court adjudicated appellant as father; appellant participated by phone from jail.
- Department removed A.T.L. and her older sister in April 2014 after finding the home in ‘‘deplorable’’ condition with accessible weapons and animals; children placed in foster care (current foster home since Oct. 2014 and potential adoptive home).
- Appellant signed a service plan on Sept. 25, 2014, but was arrested Oct. 14, 2014 (possession of <1 gram methamphetamine) and remained incarcerated through the May 19, 2015 termination hearing. He had not completed plan services prior to incarceration.
- Department caseworker testified appellant admitted drug use (heroin, cocaine), had unstable housing, untreated mental-health issues, a criminal history, failed to support or visit the child, and made no positive changes during the case.
- Mother testified appellant exhibited violent behavior (including pulling a knife and attempted suffocation) in presence of her older daughter; she hid A.T.L. from appellant and opposed his contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports constructive abandonment under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(N) (reasonable efforts; lack of regular visits/significant contact) | Department: service plan + attempts to place with relatives show reasonable efforts; appellant did not maintain significant contact or visits before or during incarceration | Appellant: like A.Q.W., Department did not provide meaningful opportunity while he was incarcerated; no evidence he was given ability to enroll/complete services or that visits were arranged | Held: Affirmed. Department’s service plan and relative-placement efforts satisfied reasonable-efforts prong; appellant made no effort to contact or visit before or during incarceration, supporting lack of significant contact. |
| Whether failure to comply with court-ordered services (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(O)) supported termination | Department: appellant failed to complete plan and did not engage in services when free to do so | Appellant: incarceration limited his ability to complete services; challenged sufficiency of opportunity | Held: Court did not need to decide §(O) because §(N) alone supported termination; record shows appellant failed to complete plan and was not cooperative when free. |
| Whether termination was in the child’s best interest | Department: instability, criminal history, substance use, domestic violence, lack of support/visits, and foster home stability support best interest | Appellant: intends to complete in-custody programs and obtain work post-release; wants child to remain in foster care until release | Held: Affirmed. Totality of evidence (parental instability, violence, substance use, lack of contact vs. stable adoptive foster home) supports a firm belief termination was in child’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (sets clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review rules in termination cases)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standards for legal sufficiency review in termination appeals)
- In the Interest of A.Q.W., 395 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.) (discusses reasonableness of Department efforts where parent is incarcerated)
- In re D.S.A., 113 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, no pet.) (imprisonment alone does not automatically preclude application of constructive-abandonment grounds)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for best-interest analysis)