in the Interest of A.C., J.Y., J.Y. Jr., L.B., and E.B., Children
560 S.W.3d 624
| Tex. | 2018Background
- DFPS removed five children from Mother based on unsafe, drug-infested living conditions and a newborn testing positive for methamphetamines; DFPS filed to terminate parental rights.
- Parties mediated under Tex. Fam. Code §153.0071 and executed a mediated settlement agreement (MSA) signed by Mother, putative fathers, attorneys, guardian ad litem, CASA, and DFPS; the MSA stipulated statutory grounds for termination and recited that termination was in the children’s best interests.
- The MSA appointed DFPS as permanent managing conservator, set adoption/placement plans (with alternate placements), and contained prominent admonitions that the agreement was binding and not subject to revocation.
- Two planned placements later failed; Mother moved to modify the placement terms but expressly preserved her stipulations that termination should remain in place.
- At a prove-up hearing the court took judicial notice of the MSA, the DFPS caseworker summarized the MSA, the children’s ad litem and CASA supported it, Mother did not testify or retract stipulations, and the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and incorporated the MSA into the decree.
- The court of appeals affirmed; Mother appealed to the Texas Supreme Court solely arguing that, under the clear-and-convincing standard, her best-interest stipulations in the MSA and related testimony were legally/factually insufficient to support termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DFPS / Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent’s voluntary, unrecanted MSA stipulation that termination is in the child’s best interest can constitute clear and convincing evidence | Mother: Such stipulations and prove-up testimony are conclusory and lack factual support under the heightened clear-and-convincing standard | DFPS: Voluntary, binding MSA stipulations (and reasonable inferences from admitted statutory grounds and placement plans) furnish evidence adequate to satisfy the heightened standard | Held: Yes — under ordinary circumstances an unrecanted, statutorily compliant MSA stipulation that termination is in the child’s best interest can satisfy the clear-and-convincing evidentiary requirement (affirmed) |
| Whether the MSA must be given conclusive weight on best interest under §153.0071(e) | Mother: (did not assert MSA invalid; issue not central) | DFPS: MSA is binding on parties and may be considered by factfinder | Held: Court did not decide whether MSA is conclusive under §153.0071(e); only held stipulations have evidentiary value and may support best-interest finding |
| Whether stipulations to statutory grounds relieve DFPS of proving best interest | Mother: argued best-interest proof was insufficient despite stipulations to grounds | DFPS: Grounds evidence can be probative of best-interest factors but does not replace the separate best-interest requirement | Held: Proof of statutory grounds is not a substitute, but the stipulated grounds here support reasonable inferences relevant to best-interest and, combined with the MSA stipulation, satisfy the standard |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances would preclude relying on parental stipulations | Mother: contended lack of factual elaboration made stipulations inadequate | DFPS: No extraordinary circumstances present; stipulations stand | Held: The court limits holding to ordinary cases; if unusual/extenuating circumstances exist, stipulations might not suffice — none existed here |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (procedural due process requires heightened proof before involuntary termination)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (standard of proof function and significance)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (appellate review standards for clear-and-convincing proof in termination cases)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and best-interest discussion)
- In re K.S.L., 538 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. 2017) (sworn, voluntary relinquishment affidavit ordinarily sufficient to satisfy best-interest clear-and-convincing requirement)
- In re Lee, 411 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2013) (effect of mediated settlement agreements under §153.0071)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (non-exhaustive best-interest factors)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (appellate standards on weight of evidence and factfinder deference)