in the Interest of B.H.R., a Child, 535 S.W.3d 114

Background

In April 2016 the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) was appointed emergency temporary managing conservator of Brie (infant) after reports of domestic violence involving Brie’s mother, Della, and Brie’s father, Brent. Brie was placed with her maternal aunt, Kasey.
Della has another child, Henry, who had been removed earlier after reporting domestic violence in the home; Henry was placed with the same aunt and later made her permanent managing conservator.
The Department filed to terminate Della’s parental rights to Brie; after a three-day jury trial the jury found termination appropriate and the trial court entered a termination order under Family Code §161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), and (O) and found termination was in Brie’s best interest.
Della appealed, raising (1) that the case should have been dismissed under Tex. Fam. Code §263.401 for delay, (2) that evidence was factually insufficient to support statutory grounds for termination, and (3) that termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence of Brie’s best interest.
The trial court record showed Della failed to comply with multiple service-plan requirements (notably individual counseling, stable housing, employment, and providing a physical address), and repeatedly returned to an abusive relationship with Brent despite offers of help.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Della)	Held
Whether suit should have been dismissed under Tex. Fam. Code §263.401 for exceeding one-year deadline	Dismissal was not timely sought by Della; trial commenced after an extension	Della argued dismissal was required because trial began beyond the one-year period	Court: Della waived the objection by failing to move to dismiss before trial; waiver bars relief
Whether evidence factually sufficient to support termination under Ground O (failure to comply with court-ordered service plan)	The Department: Della failed to complete required individual counseling, provide stable housing/employment, or give a physical address; child had been in conservatorship >9 months	Della argued compliance with some services and blamed Brent’s conduct for removal; disputed sufficiency	Court: Evidence was factually sufficient to support Ground O; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether evidence factually sufficient for Grounds D/E (placing child in/endangering surroundings or placing with persons who endangered child)	Department relied on history of domestic violence and danger posed by Brent	Della disputed severity and causation; argued Brent was primary wrongdoer	Court: Because Ground O was supported, court did not need to resolve Della’s separate challenges to D and E
Whether termination was in Brie’s best interest	Department: Best-interest factors (Holley) favored termination—child bonded to stable aunt, risk from domestic violence, Della’s inability/unwillingness to protect child, failure to comply with services	Della argued termination primarily punished her for Brent’s conduct and emphasized her status as an abuse victim and partial compliance	Court: Evidence was factually sufficient; Holley factors weighed in favor of termination and permanence via adoption was in child’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (parental rights are fundamental and termination statutes are strictly construed in favor of the parent)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parents have fundamental right to make decisions concerning care and custody of their children)
In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2014) (standard for appellate review of termination—exacting review of entire record)
In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (definition of clear and convincing evidence and application in termination cases)
In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (factual-sufficiency framework for best-interest review in termination cases)
Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest determination)
In re H.R.M., 209 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2006) (consideration of evidence fact-finder could have reasonably found clear and convincing)
In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for assessing whether disputed evidence prevents reasonable fact-finder from forming firm belief)