in the Interest of A.C., J.Y., J.Y. JR., L.B., and E.B., Children
559 S.W.3d 176
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Dallas County DFPS sued Mother to terminate her parental rights as to five children; petitions alleged statutory grounds under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(N) and (O).
- Mother and counsel signed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) stipulating to termination "and best interest," naming DFPS Director as permanent managing conservator, and identifying preferred adoptive/placement individuals; the MSA was filed with the trial court.
- Two older children were returned by the preferred placement and were in foster care; DFPS testified it would continue to seek family placements consistent with the MSA.
- At a prove-up hearing DFPS caseworker testified termination was in the children’s best interest; the guardian ad litem stated in open court the relief was in the children’s best interest; Mother did not testify (appeared only by counsel) and presented no evidence.
- The trial court entered a decree terminating Mother’s parental rights as to all five children, appointed DFPS Director as permanent managing conservator, and gave Mother supervised visitation as provided in the MSA. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | DFPS/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in children’s best interest (legal) | MSA and testimony were conclusory; a mediated agreement alone is insufficient to prove best interest | MSA admissions + DFPS testimony and §161 grounds are probative of best interest; Mother forfeited some objections | Affirmed — evidence legally sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence that termination was in children’s best interest (factual) | Disputed evidence deprived factfinder of firm belief; Holley factors not adequately shown | Same as above; precedent supports treating MSA admissions as probative | Affirmed — evidence factually sufficient |
| Appointment of DFPS Director as permanent managing conservator | Appointment improper without sufficient evidence Mother was unfit or DFPS was best placement | Mother presented no evidence she was a suitable managing conservator; abuse of discretion not shown | Affirmed — appointment not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (lists non‑exclusive factors for best‑interest analysis)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (evidence of statutory termination grounds may be probative of best interest)
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (legal‑sufficiency review standards for termination cases)
- In re N.T., 474 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (standards for appellate review in termination cases)
- Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (opponent may waive oath objection by failing to object)
- MobileVision Imaging Servs., L.L.C. v. LifeCare Hosps. of N. Tex., L.P., 260 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (follow local precedent absent intervening change in law)