In the Interest of A.L.H.
515 S.W.3d 60
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Adam, born Sept. 2013, entered DCF custody in Jan. 2014; his parents' rights were terminated in Dec. 2014 but this court reversed as to Father in In re A.L.H.; Mother’s termination was affirmed.
- After Father’s rights were reinstated, two competing custody petitions proceeded: M.M. (paternal aunt) filed to modify conservatorship; foster parents Amy and Thomas Hood (foster-to-adopt) filed to terminate Father and obtain adoption. The Hood suit was consolidated with M.M.’s suit and tried to a jury in May 2016.
- At trial evidence showed Adam bonded strongly with the Hoods, made developmental progress there, and court-appointed experts favored the Hoods; concerns existed about Father’s long history of drug convictions, possible untreated mental illness, and membership in a group characterized as a cult.
- The jury found (1) Father’s parental rights should be terminated, (2) the Department’s designation as sole managing conservator should be modified, and (3) the Hoods should be sole managing conservators; it also denied M.M. possessory conservatorship.
- M.M. appealed (multiple procedural and sufficiency complaints). Father appealed (service, sufficiency for termination, claim-preclusion, jury charge, judgment conformity). The court affirmed the trial judgment in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Hoods are best for Adam / modification required (M.M.) | M.M.: evidence shows she can provide suitable home; Hoods’ appointment wastes state resources; evidence insufficient to modify managing conservatorship. | Hoods: Adam thrived and is securely attached to them; removal would harm Adam; changed circumstances since prior order justify modification. | Affirmed: Evidence (attachment, expert testimony, bonding, changed circumstances) was legally and factually sufficient to appoint Hoods. |
| Material and substantial change in circumstances to permit modification (M.M.) | M.M.: No substantial change since Department was named managing conservator. | Hoods: multiple material changes (Father’s rights reinstated, adoption eligibility lost, Adam bonded with Hoods, new expert evaluations). | Affirmed: Undisputed facts established material and substantial change. |
| Pretrial orders and procedure: Do Not Move order, discovery, consolidation, intervention (M.M.) | M.M.: Do Not Move order violated due process; discovery improperly quashed; Hoods lacked standing/consent; consolidation improper; intervention barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel. | Hoods/State: Order appropriate to preserve placement; discovery issue not shown reversible; Hoods met statutory standing as foster parents; no consent required to intervene; consolidation proper given common questions. | Affirmed: M.M. failed to preserve some complaints; standing and consolidation proper; res judicata/collateral estoppel not applicable. |
| Post-judgment: JNOV, sibling access, attorney’s fees (M.M.) | M.M.: JNOV should be granted; court abused discretion in denying sibling-access order; fee award improper/bad faith. | Hoods: jury verdict supported; sibling-access order discretionary; fee award within court’s discretion and objections waived. | Affirmed: JNOV not meritorious; sibling access denial not abuse of discretion; fee challenges waived or unsupported. |
| Service of process (Father) | Father: Judgment void for lack of citation in Hoods’ Adoption Suit. | Hoods: Father’s attorney ad litem filed answers (general appearances) after reinstatement, waiving service complaint. | Affirmed: Answers by appointed counsel constituted general appearance and waived service challenge. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate Father’s parental rights | Father: Evidence insufficient to support statutory termination grounds. | Hoods/State: Clear-and-convincing proof of parental conduct (criminal history, untreated mental illness, course of conduct) and material change since prior denial supported termination under §161.004 using subsection (E) endangerment among other predicates. | Affirmed: Evidence legally and factually sufficient to sustain termination (jury could form firm belief of endangerment and material change). |
| Claim preclusion (res judicata/collateral estoppel) (both M.M. and Father) | Both: Hoods’ claims barred because conservatorship was denied in First Termination Suit. | Hoods: Parties/claims and factual circumstances differed; new facts developed after prior judgment. | Affirmed: Preclusion doctrines did not bar relitigation given different parties, new circumstances (e.g., Father’s reinstatement, bonding with Hoods). |
| Jury charge / omitted instructions (Father) | Father: Court should have instructed jury on res judicata/collateral estoppel when asking about material change. | Hoods: No reversible error—Father failed to object; no fundamental error because doctrines did not apply. | Affirmed: Issue not preserved; no fundamental error shown. |
| Judgment conformity with pleadings (Father) | Father: Judgment terminates under §161.004 but petition did not plead that theory. | Hoods: Issue not raised timely in trial court or new-trial motion. | Affirmed: Not preserved for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.L.H., 468 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (prior appeal reversing termination as to father)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal-sufficiency review)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear-and-convincing standard and appellate review in termination cases)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (termination and burden of proof principles)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (best-interest factors in custody determinations)
- In re A.L.E., 279 S.W.3d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (material-and-substantial-change standard for modification)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (parental rights not absolute; child’s interest paramount)