in the Interest of B.M.D.B., J.J.B., K.M.B., and V.D.C, 04-15-00393-CV

Background

Mother (Jane) appealed termination of her parental rights to four children; trial court terminated rights and awarded conservatorship to DFPS and relatives; appeal challenges termination only.
DFPS caseworker (Grier) testified Jane failed to complete her service plan, had drug issues, was incarcerated on a parole violation (released April 1, 2015), and made little contact with DFPS; Grier later recommended termination and placement with relatives.
DFPS and CASA witnesses testified children were doing well in relatives’ care (Brandy and Johnny) but offered largely conclusory statements about stability, financial struggles of relatives, and generalized allegations of prior drug use and violence without factual detail.
Grier admitted she made no attempts to contact Jane while Jane was incarcerated and minimal attempts before trial; Jane had written letters while incarcerated but there was no documented follow-up by DFPS.
Trial proceeded over Jane’s counsel’s announcement of "not ready;" Jane did not attend trial. The appellate court reviewed sufficiency of evidence under the clear-and-convincing standard for termination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there legally and factually sufficient evidence that termination was in the children’s best interest?	DFPS: Termination protects children from instability, drug use, and violence and children are thriving with relatives.	Jane: Evidence was conclusory, lacked details on harm, parental ability, finances, and DFPS failed to pursue contact; insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard.	Reversed — insufficient evidence to support best-interest finding; termination of Jane’s rights reversed and rendered.
Were DFPS’s factual findings about parental unfitness supported by evidence?	DFPS: Service-plan noncompliance, incarceration, abandonment, drug issues imply unfitness.	Jane: Evidence was vague and unsupported; Grier admitted lack of proof and failure to investigate.	Not reached — appellate court did not address grounds because best-interest finding failed.
Should the trial court’s conservatorship orders be disturbed on appeal?	DFPS: Conservatorship placement with relatives appropriate.	Jane: (Not challenged on appeal).	Affirmed — conservatorship orders left intact.
Did procedural issues at trial (trial over counsel’s "not ready," mother absent) affect sufficiency review?	DFPS: Trial court properly exercised discretion and evidence supports findings.	Jane: Procedural posture highlighted DFPS’s failure to develop evidence and contact mother.	Procedural issue noted but appellate relief based on evidentiary insufficiency, not procedural error.

Key Cases Cited

In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (standard for clear-and-convincing evidence and heightened appellate review in termination cases)
In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (deference to factfinder’s credibility determinations unless unreasonable)
In re J.F.B., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (legal and factual sufficiency review rules in parental-termination appeals)
In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (conclusory testimony is insufficient to support best-interest finding)
In re A.H., 414 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013, no pet.) (same; unsubstantiated conclusions inadequate for termination)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors relevant to child’s best-interest determination)
In re O.N.H., 401 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2013) (past parental acts probative but do not automatically prove current best interest)