In the INTEREST OF D.M., a Child
452 S.W.3d 462
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Mother ("Emma") left her son D.M. (born Oct. 2010) alone in an evicted, filthy apartment where he was found playing with broken glass, with syringes nearby, flea infestation, no diaper/shoes, and little food; police and CPS removed the child.
- Emma admitted leaving D.M. with a friend (Thomas) who had a criminal/drug history; Emma also admitted a long history of methamphetamine addiction, multiple prior incarcerations, and prior CPS involvement.
- Emma later completed a service plan, graduated felony drug court, and had months of sobriety and employment at trial; she tested positive for meth/amphetamines shortly after removal but before treatment.
- D.M. was placed with a foster family for ~1.5 years; he was malnourished and withdrawn at removal but showed marked physical, emotional, and speech improvement in foster care and bonded with the family, who sought to adopt.
- Trial court terminated Emma’s parental rights under Tex. Fam. Code §161.001(1)(D) and (E) and found termination was in the child’s best interest; this appeal challenges statutory endangerment and best-interest findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Emma) | Defendant's Argument (State/CPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(D) (knowingly left child in dangerous conditions) | Emma argued evidence was insufficient to prove she knowingly placed D.M. in endangering conditions warranting termination | Officers, CPS, and Emma’s own admissions established she left D.M. in unsanitary, hazardous conditions (syringes, glass, feces, fleas, no food/diaper) | Affirmed — evidence legally and factually sufficient for (D) |
| Whether evidence supports termination under §161.001(1)(E) (placed child with persons who endangered child) | Emma contended she did not knowingly place D.M. with persons whose conduct justified termination | Testimony showed she left D.M. with a friend (Thomas) who had a drug/criminal history and with D.M.’s father who had violent convictions; CPS concluded these placements endangered D.M. | Affirmed — evidence supports (E) |
| Whether termination is in D.M.’s best interest given mother’s rehabilitation | Emma argued her completion of services, sustained sobriety, employment, housing, and bond with D.M. made termination unnecessary | State pointed to the child’s improvement in foster care, mother’s long history of substance abuse/incarceration, prior CPS involvement, risk of relapse, and exposure to drug use/domestic violence | Affirmed — court could reasonably find termination in child’s best interest under Holley factors |
| Whether recent evidence of rehabilitation defeats termination | Emma claimed recent sobriety and completion of services outweighed past misconduct and the State failed to produce clear-and-convincing proof of present/future danger | State argued prior history plus circumstances of removal and child’s bonding/stability in foster care justified inference of future risk and need for permanence | Held against Emma — trial court reasonably credited risks from past conduct despite rehabilitation evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2009) (standard for clear and convincing evidence in termination cases)
- In the Interest of J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (review-of-evidence framework for parental-termination appeals)
- Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) (Holley factors for best-interest analysis)
- In the Interest of C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. 2002) (same; evidentiary scope for Holley factors)
- In the Interest of C.L.C., 119 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (unsanitary conditions can constitute endangerment)
- In the Interest of J.T.G., 121 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003) (domestic violence and parental drug use support endangerment finding)
- In the Interest of M.G.D., 108 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003) (compliance with service plan does not preclude finding termination is in child’s best interest)
- In the Interest of J.D., 436 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (inference that past inability to meet child’s needs may predict future inability)
- In re E.N.C., 384 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2012) (requirement that best-interest finding be proved by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2002) (heightened appellate scrutiny in termination cases)