in the Interest of C.A.J., a Child
459 S.W.3d 175
Tex. App.2015Background
- Alice Jenson sought to terminate Larry Jenson’s parental rights to C.A.J. after a bench trial.
- The trial court found (1) Larry was criminally responsible for conduct causing serious injury to a child, (2) the conduct was indecency with a child, (3) Larry endangered C.A.J.’s physical or emotional well‑being, (4) Larry exposed C.A.J. to or with others who endangered her, and (5) termination was in C.A.J.’s best interest; Larry’s rights were terminated.
- On appeal, Larry challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of the grounds and best‑interest finding.
- The court must uphold termination if there is clear and convincing evidence of a statutory ground and a best‑interest finding.
- The court affirms, concluding sufficient evidence supported both the grounds and the best‑interest determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the termination grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence? | Jenson argues grounds under 161.001(1)(L) and (E) are not proven. | Jenson contends evidentiary insufficiency for the predicate findings. | Yes, grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Is the termination in C.A.J.’s best interest supported? | Jenson claims best interest not supported by the Holley factors. | Jenson asserts lack of sufficient factors favoring termination. | Yes, best‑interest finding supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny for termination; due process requires clear and convincing proof)
- In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (termination standards; deference to fact-finder in sufficiency review)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (clear and convincing standard; formal grounds and best interest)
- In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (practice for sufficiency and best interest)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (standard for reviewing termination evidence)
- In re A.V., 113 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2003) (Holley factors; nonexclusive list for best interest)
- In re N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (endangerment by parent’s conduct or omissions)
- In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (drug use as endangering conduct supporting termination)
- Perez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 148 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2004) (past conduct may show future danger)