in the Interest of A.S., a Child
10-21-00272-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 6, 2022Background
- DFPS became involved after domestic-violence incidents at Mother’s home; A.S. (an infant) was present and Father was incarcerated in California before A.S.’s birth.
- Mother used methamphetamine and placed A.S. with relatives and then an unrelated foster family; DFPS filed for conservatorship and termination in January 2020 and A.S. remained in foster care.
- An associate judge declined to terminate parental rights but appointed DFPS sole managing conservator; DFPS requested a de novo hearing before the referring court.
- At the de novo hearing DFPS sought termination of Mother under §§161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P) and of Father under (N) (ad litem also sought (E) for Father); the referring court ultimately signed a final order terminating both parents’ rights.
- Mother appealed claiming denial of a jury trial at the de novo stage; Father appealed claiming legally and factually insufficient evidence to support termination.
- The referring court found Father had only two video contacts with A.S., remained incarcerated and lacked ability/effort to reunify; the court concluded DFPS proved abandonment/constructive abandonment (N), endangerment (E), and that termination was in A.S.’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the referring court abused its discretion by denying Mother a jury trial after she withdrew and later renewed her request | Mother: denial deprived her jury right because the de novo proceeding should allow a jury | DFPS: Mother’s earlier jury demand was untimely, no jury-docket dates shown, and delay would harm the child; court has discretion | Court: no abuse of discretion; Mother was not denied a jury before termination and denial was proper |
| Whether parents are entitled to a jury trial at a de novo hearing when DFPS seeks termination | Mother: de novo review in termination context should protect jury rights | DFPS: statute limits jury entitlement at de novo hearings; first-time jury in de novo is discretionary | Court: de novo hearings are not trials de novo; jury at de novo is discretionary and may be denied consistent with precedent |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to terminate Father’s parental rights | Father: DFPS failed to prove abandonment/constructive abandonment and didn’t reasonably attempt reunification | DFPS: Father had minimal contact (two video calls), was incarcerated, had history of violence and drug use, provided no documentation or requests for reunification; evidence supports (N) and (E) and best interest | Court: evidence legally and factually sufficient to terminate Father under (N) and (E); termination in child’s best interest affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.L.M.-F., 593 S.W.3d 271 (Tex. 2019) (standards on associate-judge de novo hearings and jury-demand discretion)
- In re J.F.-G., 627 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. 2021) (termination elements and role of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal sufficiency standard in termination appeals)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual sufficiency standard in termination appeals)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for determining child’s best interest)
- Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. 1987) (definition and scope of endangerment)
- In re N.G., 577 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2019) (importance of evaluating §§161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E) when termination affects other children)