in the Interest of A.F.G., B.N.G., A.M.G., and J.L.G. Jr., Children, 14-17-00440-CV

Background

Department removed five children (Ana, Bonnie, Andrea, Julian, Sara) after school/medical reports in Nov. 2015: two children (Andrea, Julian) were severely malnourished and admitted to Texas Children’s Hospital with signs of abuse and micronutrient deficiency; other children had bruises and reports of physical/sexual abuse by household adults.
Andrea (4) and Julian (2) were profoundly emaciated, had fractures/bruises, skin/rash issues, and developmental risk; physicians concluded abuse/neglect caused their condition and that they would have died without intervention.
Department obtained temporary managing conservatorship and filed termination petitions against Mother for all five children; separate jury trial terminated Mother’s rights to Ana, Bonnie, Andrea, and Julian; bench trial terminated rights to Sara (also relied on prior termination).
Evidence at trial included medical testimony, investigators’ observations, children’s statements, caregiver testimony that children were flourishing in placements, and evidence that maternal grandparents observed malnourished children but took no action.
Mother invoked the Fifth Amendment at trial, completed some services but did not accept responsibility or convincingly explain the children’s conditions; relatives proposed as placements were not approved.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for termination under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(b)(1)(E) (endangerment) for Ana, Bonnie, Andrea, Julian	Mother argued poor judgment and denial of abuse explain failures; no direct evidence she intended harm	Medical and investigative evidence showed a voluntary, ongoing course of acts/omissions (starvation, neglect, failure to seek care) that endangered children	Evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (E)
Sufficiency of evidence for termination of Sara under §161.001(b)(1)(M) (prior termination of other children)	Mother argued prior terminations should not stand, so (M) fails	Prior termination decree for other children was admitted and supports (M) for Sara	§161.001(b)(1)(M) finding was supported because prior termination was proven
Best interest of the children	Mother emphasized bond with relatives and completion of services; urged relative placement	Department and caregivers showed children thriving, stable placements, plans to adopt, and ongoing risk if returned	Court held termination was in children’s best interest (factors weigh for termination)
Appointment of Department as sole managing conservator	Mother urged continued relationship with relatives (aunt) and reconsideration of relatives as placement	Department showed stable placements, relatives had witnessed malnutrition and not acted, no evidence aunt fit or sought custody	Appointment of Department as sole managing conservator was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights implicate fundamental constitutional interests)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for reviewing termination evidence; consider all evidence in light most favorable)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights are not absolute; same evidence may support both predicate grounds and best interest)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard and review in termination cases)
In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (only one predicate §161.001(b)(1) finding needed with best-interest finding)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (nonexclusive factors for best-interest determination)
In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (review of best-interest finding and parental responsibility factors)
In re L.G.R., 498 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (when both parents’ rights are terminated, court must appoint Department or suitable adult as managing conservator)