in the Interest of B.S., a Minor Child
13-15-00281-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Appellant P.A.S. appealed the termination of her parental rights to minor B.S.; trial court terminated parental rights under Texas Family Code §161.001(1) and found termination was in the child’s best interest.
- The Department had been appointed temporary managing conservator on May 29, 2014; the termination trial occurred May 20, 2015.
- The court relied on multiple statutory grounds, including §161.001(1)(O) (failure to comply with a court-ordered family service plan after the child was in the Department’s conservatorship for at least nine months).
- Appellant argued termination was premature because the Family Service Plan’s stated “target date” for reunification was July 15, 2015, and she claimed she still had 57 days to comply with requirements and had not been given specific deadlines or understood the order.
- The record showed appellant failed to complete required services (e.g., parenting classes, counseling), did not sign releases so the Department could verify services, and did not maintain weekly contact with her caseworker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to terminate P.A.S.’s parental rights under §161.001(1)(O) | P.A.S.: termination unsupported because she had a July 15, 2015 target date and 57 days remaining to comply; no specific deadlines were imposed and she hadn’t understood/reviewed the order | Dept.: trial was timely before the one-year statutory deadline; appellant failed to comply with ongoing service-plan obligations and did not show she met goals | Court affirmed; evidence sufficiently supported termination under §161.001(1)(O) and best-interest finding; appellant’s timing argument rejected |
| Whether the Department was required to delay seeking termination until the service-plan “target date” or to set specific deadlines for each task | P.A.S.: Dept. could not seek termination before the target date or without specific deadlines for compliance | Dept.: target date was for reunification goal, not a deadline for seeking termination; statute and rule allowed trial before that date; many tasks were ongoing with no fixed deadline | Held: target date did not bar termination; Department need not impose discrete deadlines for every ongoing task; trial before the target date was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (termination of parental rights affects fundamental liberties)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing legal and factual sufficiency in parental-termination cases)
- In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard and appellate review guidance)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (disregard evidence a factfinder could reasonably have disbelieved)
- In re A.J.M., 375 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (en banc) (only one statutory ground under §161.001(1) plus best-interest finding is required to support termination)