363 S.W.3d 916
Tex. App.2012Background
- Appellant previously had custody of four children; Oklahoma and Texas placements involved abuse/neglect and domestic-violence issues.
- In 2004, Texas DFPS removed the four children; 2005 decree made DFPS permanent managing conservator and appellant possessory conservator with required services and child support.
- In 2009, DFPS moved to terminate parental rights under subsections (F), (I), and (O) and best interests.
- A 2010 placement-review/trial-like hearing occurred; proceedings continued with multiple hearings and changes in representation.
- On April 26, 2011, trial court terminated appellant’s parental rights to all four children under (F), (I), and (O) and for the best interests; the court treated the June 29, 2010 proceeding as part of trial.
- Evidence showed appellant did not pay court-ordered child support consistently, had periods of unemployment, engaged in visits with the children, and failed to complete required services, while the Department planned permanent placements (adoption or guardianship) for the children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the termination supported under subsection (F) (failure to support) by clear and convincing evidence? | Appellant’s ability to pay support was demonstrated by purchases for children during the period; the court-ordered amount was not dispositive. | Appellant failed to provide support during the relevant period and had the ability to pay but chose not to. | Yes; legally and factually sufficient to support termination under (F). |
| Was the termination in the children's best interest supported by legally and factually sufficient evidence? | Appellant failed to complete services, undermined permanency plans, and the children needed stable homes and potential adopters. | Despite shortcomings, parental rights should be preserved where possible and the parent-child bond supports continued relation. | Yes; termination was in the children's best interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (clear and convincing standard; termination requires statutory grounds and best interest)
- In re C.L., 322 S.W.3d 889 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (contextualizes (F) standard and evidentiary review)
- In re J.M.M., 80 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002) (supportability evidence and evidentiary burden in (F))
- Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (constitutional dimension of parent-child rights; strict scrutiny in termination)
- In re U.P., 105 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (Holley framework and best-interest considerations)
- Phillips v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 25 S.W.3d 348 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (Governing scope of support obligations and misinterpretation of minimal gifts)