in the Interest of A.L.G., C.C.A., and A.R.A., Children
07-21-00020-CV
| Tex. App. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- In April 2019 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services investigated after reports the children lived in an unsafe, unsanitary, and unstable environment (chronic lice, dirty clothes, insufficient food, severe clutter, roaches, electrical hazards). The home was described as a fire and health hazard.
- The children (ages 10–15 at hearing) were removed for neglect; one tested positive for methamphetamine via hair test at removal. Mother (E.J.A.) also tested positive for methamphetamine at removal and later relapsed after treatment.
- The Department placed the children in foster care and then Amarillo Children’s Home; the children received counseling and made measurable progress, though A.L.G. struggled more than his siblings.
- The children’s counselor and CASA expressed concern about mother’s inconsistent stability and relapses; the counselor reported the children were traumatized, had bonded to caregivers at the children’s home, and at least one child did not want to return.
- The trial court terminated E.J.A.’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1) (D), (E), (N), (O), and (P) and found termination was in the children’s best interests. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal. The appellate court affirmed the termination and deferred action on counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination under §161.001(b)(1)(D) (dangerous living conditions) | E.J.A. contended evidence did not establish endangering conditions or awareness/disregard of risk | Dept. pointed to documented severe infestation, clutter, electrical/fire hazards, and mother’s drug use showing awareness and disregarded risk | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported (D) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination under §161.001(b)(1)(E) (parental conduct causing endangerment) | E.J.A. argued her conduct did not amount to a voluntary, deliberate course of endangering acts | Dept. pointed to ongoing methamphetamine use, drug paraphernalia, failure to follow safety plan, and repeated relapses as a course of conduct endangering children | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported (E) |
| Sufficiency for other statutory grounds (N, O, P) | E.J.A. challenged sufficiency as to abandonment, failure to comply with court orders, and substance-endangerment predicates | Dept. relied on lack of sustained compliance, missed contacts and drug relapses, and that reasonable efforts were made to return children | Affirmed: trial court found those grounds supported termination |
| Best-interest determination | E.J.A. argued termination was not in children’s best interests; children expressed mixed preferences | Dept., CASA, and counselor emphasized children’s trauma, need for stability, progress in placement, and uncertainty about mother’s stability | Affirmed: termination found to be in children’s best interests |
| Procedural/due process and appellate counsel’s Anders brief / withdrawal | E.J.A. (through counsel) raised potential procedural/due process issues and appellate counsel sought leave to withdraw under Anders | State argued procedures complied and Anders brief met requirements; court must independently review record | Court found no non-frivolous due process issues, concluded Anders brief adequate, affirmed judgment, but deferred ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw per In re P.M. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
- In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (appellate duty to review findings under subsections D or E)
- In re K.M.L., 443 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review in termination cases)
- In re M.M., 584 S.W.3d 885 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019) (distinguishing D and E endangerment analyses)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel to seek withdrawal in non-meritorious appeals)
- In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (court’s duty to ensure counsel withdrawal will not prejudice client)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (requirement of independent appellate review when counsel seeks to withdraw)