in the Interest of A.D.S. and J.P.S.
04-17-00102-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- The Department filed for conservatorship and termination of K.L.R.’s parental rights to her children A.D.S. (3) and J.P.S. (1) after a 2016 police raid on the family home where drugs and guns were found and the children were dirty and behind on immunizations.
- At removal, Appellant tested positive for cocaine and marijuana and admitted marijuana use; she was placed on a family service plan requiring drug treatment, counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluation, and drug testing.
- Appellant repeatedly refused or failed drug tests, did not complete outpatient drug treatment or NA attendance, missed visits with the children, and was noncompliant with probation; she completed a psychological evaluation but did not complete recommended therapy/parenting programs.
- The children were placed with their paternal great-aunt for about eight months; she was willing to adopt and witnesses described the placement as safe and loving. Appellant threatened the caretakers via social media/phone.
- The trial court found termination appropriate under Texas Family Code §161.001(b)(1) (predicate grounds D, E, and O) and that termination was in the children’s best interest; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department/State) | Defendant's Argument (K.L.R.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & factual sufficiency to support termination under §161.001(b)(1)(O) (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan) | Appellant failed to complete required treatment/tests and thus did not comply with the plan; children removed due to abuse/neglect | Appellant conceded noncompletion but argued children were not removed for abuse or neglect, so (O) does not apply | Affirmed: evidence legally and factually sufficient for (O); children removed due to condition of home/drug use |
| Legal & factual sufficiency to support termination under §§161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) (endangerment) | Drug use, firearms, filthy home, and threats endangered children | Appellant disputed the sufficiency of evidence for endangerment | Court relied on (O) to affirm and did not resolve D/E further (multiple grounds not necessary) |
| Sufficiency that termination was in children’s best interest | Continued substance abuse, missed visits, failure to complete services, and threats made return unsafe; stable adoptive placement available | Appellant argued insufficiency but emphasized efforts and mediation letter expressing love and remorse | Affirmed: totality of evidence supported finding termination was in children’s best interest |
| Whether one predicate finding suffices for termination when best interest is shown | Department: only one predicate ground needed plus best-interest finding | Appellant: disputed predicate sufficiency | Affirmed principle: one valid predicate (here §161.001(b)(1)(O)) plus best-interest finding is sufficient for termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate ground plus best interest needed for termination)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and sufficiency review framework)
- In re S.N., 272 S.W.3d 45 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.) (parental illegal drug use supports endangerment finding)
- In re K.W., 335 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (affirmance may rest on any one proved predicate ground)
- In re D.S., 333 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.) (same principle regarding multiple predicate findings)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption that keeping a child with a parent is in the child’s best interest)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (best-interest analysis can be based on circumstantial and totality of the evidence)
- In re E.D., 419 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, pet. denied) (past conduct may be used to predict future parental behavior for best-interest determination)
- Cervantes-Peterson v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 221 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (continued illegal drug use after removal can justify termination)