in the Interest of C.J.S and S.G.B., Jr., Children
383 S.W.3d 682
Tex. App.2012Background
- Department took custody of C.J.S. and S.G.B. on December 23, 2009 and placed them in a non-relative foster home after filing a petition for protection, conservatorship, and termination.
- Latasha was ordered to comply with a family service plan requiring domestic violence, anger management, parenting classes, psychological evaluations, therapy, and random drug testing, with missed tests treated as positive.
- Latasha tested positive for cocaine on a hair follicle test around May 25, 2011, indicating use within the prior 90 days, and she admitted missing several drug tests.
- Latasha gave birth to a third child on May 2, 2011 and remained in Department custody; she did not obtain sole managing conservatorship and continued to participate in court-ordered services.
- Trial court terminated Latasha's parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D),(E),(F),(O) and found termination was in the children’s best interest under §161.001(2).
- Appellate court affirmed, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support endangerment under (E) and the best-interest finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Endangering conduct under §161.001(1)(E) | Latasha | Department | Sufficient evidence supports endangerment |
| Best interest of the children under §161.001(2) | Latasha | Department | Best interest termination supported |
| Failure to comply with family service plan under §161.001(1)(O) | Latasha | Department | Sufficient evidence supports plan noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (heightened burden in termination cases; clear and convincing standard)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; appellate review)
- In re C.A.B., 289 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (endangerment requires more than a single act; course of conduct may endanger)
- In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2005) (central to best-interest and sufficiency analysis)
- In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (factors for best-interest analysis; not exhaustive)