in the Interest of A.S., J.S., A.S., and D.S., Children
10-16-00281-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Four children (A.S., J.S., A.S., and D.S.) were removed after abuse/neglect: Daniel slapped J.S. leaving a bruise; home unsanitary; history of domestic violence and sexual abuse allegations.
- Children placed in foster settings/children’s home; J.S. required residential treatment; therapy available under Department conservatorship.
- Candice and Daniel reconciled during the case; both had unstable housing and employment, prior CPS history in Georgia, and at times were homeless.
- Daniel pled guilty to injury to a child and was placed on community supervision; he admitted sexual assault of Candice; children exhibited fear and limited bonding with Daniel.
- Parents were subject to a court-ordered service plan requiring psychological evaluation, therapy, behavioral intervention, housing/employment, visits, and child support; Daniel did not complete all requirements.
- Trial court terminated parental rights; Candice and Daniel appealed separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Candice preserved a factual-sufficiency challenge that termination was not in children's best interest | Candice: evidence factually insufficient to show termination was in children’s best interest | State: Candice failed to file a motion for new trial, so challenge not preserved | Not preserved; issue overruled (appeal against Candice affirmed) |
| Whether evidence legally/factually sufficient that Daniel failed to comply with court-ordered services (Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(O)) | Daniel: substantially complied with service plan; termination on O ground improper | State: Daniel did not complete required components (behavioral program, consistent therapy, stable housing/employment, visits, child support) | Evidence legally and factually sufficient to find failure to complete plan; termination supported under §161.001(b)(1)(O) |
| Whether evidence legally/factually sufficient that termination was in the children’s best interest | Daniel: termination not shown to be in children’s best interest | State: children’s safety, emotional needs, improvement in foster care, parental omissions, instability, and children’s fear support termination | Evidence legally and factually sufficient; termination in children’s best interest |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.M., 385 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012) (motion for new trial required to preserve factual-sufficiency challenge)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground under §161.001(b)(1) plus best interest required for termination)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and review approach in termination cases)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (factual-sufficiency review—deference to factfinder and standard for overturning)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (Holley factors and best-interest analysis guidance)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive factors for best-interest determination)
- In re T.N.F., 205 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006) (substantial compliance not equivalent to completion for §161.001(b)(1)(O) analysis)