in the Interest of A.S., a Child
11-16-00293-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 31, 2017Background
- Child A.S. was removed as an infant after police responded to domestic violence by the father and observed parental drug use; both parents were arrested at removal.
- A.S. was placed with her maternal great aunt, who provided a stable, loving home and planned to adopt; A.S. was bonded and developmentally on track in that placement.
- Mother had a prior Department history, continued methamphetamine use during the case, partially complied with services, and an attempted monitored return failed when she left the child with the grandmother; her visits were later suspended.
- Father tested positive for methamphetamine at removal and while the case was pending, failed to comply with services, had intermittent incarceration, attended few visits, and was incarcerated at the final hearing.
- Trial court found statutory grounds for termination as to both parents and concluded termination was in A.S.’s best interest; parents appealed solely challenging the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to show termination was in child’s best interest | Mother and father: evidence insufficient; parents should be appointed possessory conservators rather than having rights terminated | Department/guardian ad litem: parents’ drug use, domestic violence, failed compliance, lack of bond, and need for permanency support termination | Affirmed: evidence was legally and factually sufficient to terminate both parents’ rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency in parental termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing factual sufficiency in termination cases)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive factors for evaluating child’s best interest)
- In re C.J.O., 325 S.W.3d 261 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2010) (statutory grounds evidence may also support best-interest finding)
- In re J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (past inability to meet child’s needs and endangering conduct can support inference of future risk)