in the Interest of C.M. and C.F., Children
01-15-00830-CV
Tex. App.Oct 29, 2015Background
- DFPS filed suit seeking termination of mother AF’s parental rights to CM and CF; cases consolidated and tried March 10–13, 2015.
- Service plans required AF to complete inpatient and intensive outpatient substance-abuse treatment; AF admitted she started outpatient treatment multiple times but completed none.
- AF has a documented long history of substance abuse (marijuana, cocaine, hydrocodone/Vicodin) and prior removals of other children related to drug use.
- CF was removed at birth after testing positive for prescribed barbiturates; AF later admitted using Vicodin without a prescription after inpatient treatment.
- After DFPS rested, AF moved for a directed verdict on all termination grounds; the trial court granted the directed verdict, denied submission of termination grounds to the jury, ordered monitored return, and later the case was dismissed by operation of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DFPS) | Defendant's Argument (AF / Trial Court) | Held (trial-court action) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether termination could be submitted under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(O) for failure to comply with court-ordered plan | AF clearly failed to complete court-ordered substance-abuse components; failure to complete creates a triable fact on substantial compliance | Trial court granted directed verdict for AF, refusing jury consideration | Trial court granted directed verdict for AF (denying submission) |
| 2. Whether termination could be submitted under §161.001(1)(P) for controlled-substance use endangering child | AF both failed to complete treatment and admitted later illicit Vicodin use; expert opined high relapse risk supporting endangerment | AF argued insufficiency; court declined to submit to jury | Trial court granted directed verdict for AF (denying submission) |
| 3. Whether termination could be submitted under §161.001(1)(D) (endangering environment) | AF’s chronic drug use, positive tests, and history of removals created an endangering environment; single acts/omissions may suffice | AF contested sufficiency; court did not submit to jury | Trial court granted directed verdict for AF (denying submission) |
| 4. Whether termination could be submitted under §161.001(1)(E) (engaging in conduct that endangers child) and whether termination was in best interest | Evidence of repeated drug use, relapses, domestic violence, expert and caseworker testimony, CASA and foster-parent testimony supported best-interest and predicate grounds | AF contested; judge removed jury from deciding these issues | Trial court granted directed verdict for AF (denying submission); DFPS seeks reversal and new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for directed verdict and appellate review)
- In re S.M.R., 434 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. 2014) (substantial-compliance with service plan is typically a fact question)
- Brazoria County Children's Protective Servs. v. Frederick, 176 S.W.3d 277 (Tex. App. 2004) (directed verdict review in termination context)
- Walker v. Tex. Dept. of Family and Protective Servs., 312 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App. 2009) (drug use can support termination absent direct proof of injury)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for child best-interest inquiry)