in the Interest of B.M.C. and C.M.C., Children
01-16-00300-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Mother (S.M.C.) has two children: B.M.C. (b. 2009) and C.M.C. (b. 2012); DFPS first intervened in 2012 after Mother and newborn C.M.C. tested positive for drugs and a safety plan was implemented and later closed.
- In February 2015 DFPS reopened the case after B.M.C. reported domestic violence; Mother admitted to mutual physical violence with Father and to untreated mental-health diagnoses; the home showed damage from fights.
- Both parents tested positive for cocaine in February 2015; children were placed first with a family friend and then in foster care after placement disruptions and continued parental misconduct and threats.
- The court ordered a reunification service plan requiring substance-abuse treatment, drug testing, counseling, domestic-violence and parenting classes, stable housing and employment; Mother completed some but not all requirements and repeatedly tested positive for illegal drugs through 2015.
- At trial DFPS and the guardian ad litem testified the children were thriving in foster care, the foster parents wished to adopt, and termination was in the children’s best interest; trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(b)(1)(E) and (O) and § 161.001(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s conduct (or knowingly placing children with persons who engaged in conduct) endangered the children under § 161.001(b)(1)(E) | DFPS: Mother’s ongoing drug use, prenatal drug exposure and domestic violence constituted a deliberate course of conduct endangering the children | Mother: Father was the primary aggressor; she was a victim and did not engage in a course of endangering conduct | Held: Evidence (drug use, mutual domestic violence, home damage, instability) was legally and factually sufficient to support (E) finding |
| Whether other statutory predicates (e.g., § 161.001(b)(1)(O)) support termination | DFPS: Mother failed to complete court-ordered services, supporting statutory grounds for termination | Mother: She substantially complied and was prevented from completing services by DFPS delays | Held: Court relied on (E) and did not need to resolve (O); (E) alone supports termination when best interest is established |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interest under § 161.001(b)(2) | DFPS: Children were bonded with foster parents, thriving, and had been exposed to prenatal drug exposure, domestic violence, poor parenting and dental neglect; permanent removal was in their best interest | Mother: She had bond with children, visited regularly, sought treatment and was ready to complete services but was hindered by DFPS | Held: Evidence was legally and factually sufficient that termination was in children’s best interest |
| Sufficiency standard on appeal (clear-and-convincing proof) | N/A | N/A | Held: Appellate review applies clear-and-convincing standard; both legal- and factual-sufficiency challenges fail — trial court’s findings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (DFPS must prove statutory grounds and best interest by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for legal- and factual-sufficiency review in termination cases; parental drug use may constitute endangerment)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (appellate review principles and consideration of evidence factfinder could disbelieve)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (endanger means more than metaphysical injury; need not be directed at child)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (factors for best-interest determination)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (presumption favoring preservation of parent-child relationship and factors for best interest)
- In re E.C.R., 402 S.W.3d 239 (Tex. 2013) (failure to complete court-ordered services can support best-interest finding)