in the Interest of A.E.M., a Child
04-15-00577-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 16, 2015Background
- Child A.E.M., age five, was removed from parental care April 21, 2014 and placed with caregiver Thelma J.; final hearing July 22, 2015. Mother later completed services and regained custody about one month before the final hearing.
- Father Darel was incarcerated after conviction for two felony counts of family violence (one assault involving A.E.M.’s mother while A.E.M. was present); he was serving a six-year sentence at the time of the hearing.
- The Department proved predicate grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b) (endangerment, failure to comply with court-ordered reunification plan, and criminal conduct resulting in confinement preventing care for two+ years); Darel did not contest those predicate findings on appeal.
- Darel was a retained (private) attorney’s client at trial and therefore attempted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was rejected as procedurally barred.
- Evidence at trial: limited parent–child contact while incarcerated; A.E.M. showed no bond with Darel and was traumatized by witnessing domestic violence; Darel had minimal child support payments after the children were placed in care.
- Trial court terminated Darel’s parental rights; Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to find termination was in the child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Darel’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance | Darel argued counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudiced the outcome | State argued Darel retained counsel and thus cannot raise ineffective-assistance claim on appeal | Court held claim barred because Darel retained counsel; issue overruled |
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient that termination was in child’s best interest | State argued clear-and-convincing evidence (bond, trauma from domestic violence, lack of support, incarceration) supported best-interest finding | Darel argued evidence insufficient to show termination was in A.E.M.’s best interest | Court held evidence sufficient under the Holley factors and affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (two-part test: predicate grounds and best interest required for termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency under clear-and-convincing evidence)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors to assess child’s best interest)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (not every Holley factor must be proven; parent’s future conduct may be evaluated)
- In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (parent’s past conduct may inform future conduct in best-interest analysis)