564 S.W.3d 441
Tex. App.2017Background
- Termination of parental rights of Jessie F. to five children in the 74th District Court; associate judge conducted initial final hearing under Chapter 201, Subchapter E, with de novo hearing requested under §201.015 to the referring court.
- Jury demand was filed after the associate judge’s ruling; the referring court denied the jury demand and conducted a de novo hearing using the trial transcript and exhibits only.
- The trial court denied the jury demand; the de novo hearing occurred within 30 days but only used transcript/exhibits from the associate judge’s hearing.
- The Department’s and the attorney ad litem’s objections to the jury demand were based on cost, logistical disruption, and potential harm to the children; Jessie proposed October 31–November 2 as a trial window.
- All five children were placed with relatives (paternal grandmother/great-grandparents) with adopters in place; the court evaluated the best interests of termination under Holley factors, considering Jessie’s continued drug use, lack of full service-plan compliance, and the children’s improved conditions in relative homes.
- The court concluded that termination was in the children’s best interest, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury demand timeliness and discretion | Jessie argues jury demand was timely and should have been granted | Court could deny if reasonable time not satisfied or disruption harmed proceedings | No reversible error; no abuse of discretion in denying jury demand. |
| Best interest—factually sufficient grounds for termination | Jessie asserts insufficiency of evidence to support best-interest finding | Record shows Jessie’s instability, noncompliance, ongoing drug use, and child improvement with relatives | Evidence factually sufficient to support termination in the children’s best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.R., 324 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (juror timing and de novo hearing timing considerations)
- Harrell v. Harrell, 986 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1998) (jury trial availability and statutory timing guidance)
- Girdner v. Rose, 213 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006) (timeliness creates rebuttable presumption for jury demand; discretionary ITA)
- Simpson v. Stem, 822 S.W.2d 323 (Tex. App.—Waco 1992) (reasonable time before trial creates presumptive right to jury demand; discretion to decide)
- Crittenden v. Crittenden, 52 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001) (presumption can be rebutted; disruption and docket impact considerations)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors guide best-interest analysis in termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (nonexclusive Holley factors; some may be inapplicable or additional factors may apply)
- In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (standard for factual-sufficiency review in termination cases)
- Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. 1996) (abuse-of-discretion review standard for jury-trial rulings)